Sitting of 12 March 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the county constituency of South-East Staffordshire, in the room of Sir David Lincoln Lightbown, deceased.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on how the changes to the disability living allowance regulations have affected current NHS patients. [18384]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): None. I have received copies of three letters to the Department of Social Security.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Minister agree that reducing or abolishing mobility payments will have an adverse effect on the lives of disabled people everywhere?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is not one of the three people who have written to me about that subject. I am not surprised because, as an experienced Member of Parliament, he will know that it is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: This is an important matter for 6.5 million disabled people. Do the Government accept that getting the issue right, in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group, will affect those who suffer from spinal cord injuries, for example? They are not supported by the national health service trusts, which have let them down by not making available the kind of services that they need. Why should disabled people pay for the Government's incompetence and insensitivity?
    Mr. Bowis: The question on the Order Paper is not a matter for the Department of Health. The hon. Gentleman
    768
    has raised issues that relate to my Department, which will play a full part in looking after the interests of disabled people, as he well knows. We have legislation on direct payments before Parliament and—as the hon. Gentleman might have had the grace and courtesy to remind the House and the public—only a few days ago we announced the introduction of the new powered indoor-outdoor wheelchair service for severely disabled people.

    Organophosphate Poisoning
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many known cases of organophosphate poisoning in England and Wales in 1994 and 1995 were notified to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [18385]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): Suspected adverse reactions involving veterinary medicines are notified to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and those involving pesticides to the Health and Safety Executive, and my Department is informed. Some 47 suspected adverse reactions to organophosphate sheep dips were reported in 1994 and 40 provisionally in 1995 in the United Kingdom. There were 29 cases of suspected organophosphate poisoning from pesticides in Great Britain in 1993–94 and 43 in 1994–95. My Department will shortly be publishing updated guidance for doctors on pesticide poisoning, which includes a reminder of the notification schemes.
    Mr. Llwyd: I take no comfort from the Minister's answer, bearing in mind the fact that, since 1985, the Health and Safety Executive has made it a notifiable occurrence. Before long, the Government will be viewed by history as another Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned. While the Department of Health has played ping-pong with the subject—throwing it back and forth to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—thousands of people in England, Wales and Scotland have fallen ill with that terrible disease. When will the Department get to grips with the problem by ensuring that those substances are banned and compensating the thousands of people who have suffered as a result of the illness?
    Mr. Horam: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Veterinary Products Committee, which is the appropriate authority, has always said that the pesticides should not be banned. As I said in my original reply, we are issuing new guidance to doctors. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government are considering the Select Committee report on the matter and taking it very seriously.

    Nurses' Work Load
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the British Medical Association about the work load of nurses. [18386]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I have not recently met the BMA specifically on the subject of nurses' work load. I am, however, in frequent contact with the medical profession and we discuss a wide range of health issues.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Secretary of State accept that the new deal for junior hospital doctors can be

    769
    implemented only with the co-operation of the nursing profession as nurses must adapt their role and take on new responsibilities? Is it not unfair that nurses should be awarded a pay increase of only 2 per cent. whereas junior hospital doctors are to receive an increase of 4.3 to 5.8 per cent?
    Mr. Dorrell: I certainly acknowledge that the implementation of the new deal has implications for the nursing work load as well as that of junior doctors. I might have hoped that, in mentioning the implementation of the new deal, the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the 2,400 new doctor posts that were created under that programme. The hon. Gentleman referred to a 2 per cent. pay increase for nurses. As he knows, that is not the position. As the review body recommended, the Government accepted the proposition that nurses' pay should be negotiated locally, subject to a floor of 2 per cent.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome that will be given to the steps that the Government have taken to ease the work load of junior doctors? Will he confirm that there is now 99 per cent. compliance with the targets to reduce on-call contracted hours for junior doctors to 72 hours per week?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to the work load of nurses.
    Mrs. Roe: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. I thought that it related to work loads within hospitals—a matter that has been raised by the BMA. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to doctors in his supplementary question.
    Mr. Dorrell: As I said to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), the implementation of the new deal affects the work load of nurses. My hon. Friend is right to say that the new deal for junior doctors has led to a dramatic reduction in the absurdly extended hours that junior doctors used to work. The review body on nurses also reported:
    "The allocation of resources for the NHS for 1996–97 means that most providers should be able to reward staff for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness while delivering increased volume of quality of care to patients."

    The review body regarded that as a "win-win" outcome for the NHS.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hospital trusts in Leeds have sent all nurses a letter saying that, from 1 April, they will be covered by new and independent bodies and that their terms and conditions could change? Will it not be the case that in future nurses will be held in reserve and hired and fired on zero-hour contracts that will undermine the profession as young potential nurses will not want to join a profession that has no apparent career structure?
    Mr. Dorrell: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on virtually every count. By agreement with the unions, new nurses joining the NHS are being recruited on local contracts. The holders of existing national contracts continue to benefit from the terms of those national contracts and the trusts continue to be bound by them.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have the best and most professional nurses
    770
    in the world in our national health service and that we have recognised the special work that they do by the independent pay review body, although there is now an element of local pay bargaining? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some concern that, because of the pressure under which nurses are now obliged to work, some people believe that we are taking the care out of nursing and that only the treatment matters when, in a vocational profession such as nursing, care is equally as important as the treatment?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that we are blessed in the health service with an immensely dedicated nursing work force, among other professions in the service, and to stress the broader aspects of care for which nurses are famed and their contribution respected. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, since 1979, at a time when earnings in the rest of the economy have risen 36 per cent. in real terms, the Government have seen nurses' earnings rise by a total of 70 per cent. over the same period. That shows the value that we attach to the nursing profession.
    Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State stop being complacent and admit that the British Medical Association is concerned, as we are, about the effect on patients of a shortage of nurses and doctors in accident and emergency departments? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are in most A and E departments shortages of specialist nurses, junior doctors, middle-grade doctors and even consultants? What action does the Secretary of State plan?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is still playing the record that she played before Christmas, and she has been proven wrong by events. Before Christmas, the hon. Lady said that we would run into a shortage of junior doctors in A and E departments. I told the House last week that we conducted an audit on the subject a few weeks ago and found that 5 per cent. of junior doctor posts in A and E departments were vacant. The hon. Lady was wrong before Christmas and she remains wrong now.

    Health Care
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had over the future of the independent sector hospitals in the provision of health care. [18387]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I have met representatives from the Independent Healthcare Association and individual independent health care companies from time to time, to discuss issues of concern to the independent sector.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend may know that the third largest independent hospital in this country is Benenden hospital in Kent, originally founded for postal workers and their families. Despite the fact that Unison has questioned whether that represents a two-tier system, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has no intention of denying choice and diversity to trade union and Labour party members who continue to use that excellent hospital for health care outside the national health service?
    Mr. Malone: It is rather good to see the words of partnership in the bible that was published 10 days ago

    771
    by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) being put into practice by some Labour party members. That particular aspect of the mixed economy in health care is welcome, and I am sure that it will endure.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister confirm that NHS hospitals have been asked to reduce waiting lists in the period leading to the next general election to 12 months wherever possible and that, as a result, Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge has been contracting patients into private hospitals, including the BUPA hospital in Norwich? Why cannot the NHS provide for NHS patients?
    Mr. Malone: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Lady attacks us for reducing NHS waiting lists. I understood that it has been accepted by the Labour party that we have partnership in health care. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that where value for money and effective treatment can be obtained in the private sector, that should be denied to patients, I hope she will explain why to her constituents, who would be denied the sort of health care that they are now receiving if the hon. Lady were ever to get into office.

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease in England in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [18388]
    Mr. Horam: I am pleased to report that the trend in coronary heart disease is in the right direction. Mortality rates for CHD in people under 65 fell by 25 per cent. between 1987 and 1992. Since "The Health of the Nation" report in 1992, the trend has continued with falls of 10.7 per cent. in CHD mortality for under 65s and 7.7 per cent. for the 65 to 74 age group between 1993 and 1994. Progress, therefore, is very encouraging.
    Mr. Coombs: The figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House are extremely encouraging, but can he confirm that there are still 140,000 deaths from coronary heart disease every year? Given that fact, how can the Government build on the success so far of "The Health of the Nation" strategy to convince that proportion of the population that continues to believe that it is immortal that that is not the case, and that sensible diet and exercise are worth while?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. Coronary heart disease is still the major killer and my advice to everyone is to take more regular physical exercise. The House is not setting a good example. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, of the excellent facilities in the Boothroyd studio over the road in the Westminster gym. It is not well used by Members of Parliament and I say to everybody, "Get physical, release your endorphins and feel the stimulus of exercise. Look after your heart and your heart will look after you."
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: What has the Minister to say about a recent Audit Commission report which says that access to coronary bypass operations depends on where one happens to live?
    Mr. Horam: That is not the case. I have seen the report in question, but I shall certainly look at it again. If that is the hon. Gentleman's impression of the report, it is contrary to mine.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: While it is true that moderate exercise is very good for the health and for the prevention of coronary disease, does my hon. Friend believe that it is reasonable to ask young people to bicycle nine miles to school every day, perhaps to a school in my hon. Friend's constituency? Is it reasonable for parents to ask children to travel those nine miles?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend has a very real point.
    Mr. McLeish: I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that, after the next election, Conservative Members will have more time to do any exercise that they choose. Will the Minister accept that, as 18,000 people die of coronary heart disease every year, we should be making a bigger effort to reduce those figures by more preventative measures and more treatment? Will the Minister also accept that a recently published report by the House of Commons Library shows that 40 per cent. of the district health authorities in England will not make the reduced target of 40 per cent. by 2000? Is not it a disgrace that people on waiting lists are dying because they cannot have access to a bypass operation? When will the Government stop being complacent and introduce policies that will address the real issues in the national health service?
    Mr. Horam: If that is the case, I hope that I can count on the partnership of the hon. Gentleman in our Health Education Authority campaign, "Active for Life", which starts next week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me to promote good habits.

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the targets set in "The Health of the Nation" in respect of encouraging (a) exercise and (b) a healthy life style. [18389]
    Mr. Bowis: Good progress has been made on both.
    Mr. Robathan: "The Health of the Nation" report rightly stresses the importance of physical activity and exercise—to follow on from the last question. Will my hon. Friend speak to his colleagues at the Departments of Transport, of the Environment, and for Education and Employment and ask them to encourage people to walk and to bicycle rather than to use private cars? Will my hon. Friend note especially that only 2 per cent. of schoolchildren in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), as elsewhere, now bicycle to school, whereas a huge number travel by private car? Does my hon. Friend believe that the House could set a better example and can he think of anybody who could set a better example in physical exercise?
    Mr. Bowis: I cannot think what my hon. Friend means. The basic thrust of his energetic question is right. Moderate exercise is what is required, and a modest increase in the level of exercise taken by all of us would be beneficial. School sports certainly have a part to play—

    773
    which is why it is such a pity that, not so many years ago, Labour authorities such as the Inner London education authority banned competitive sports.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In "The Health of the Nation", published in 1992, the Government set a target for reducing smoking by 11 to 15-year-olds by 33 per cent. within two years—by 1994. In fact, over that period smoking in that age group that rose by 20 per cent, according to a survey at the end of last year—especially among girls. When will the Government follow the advice of the chief medical officer and support a ban on tobacco advertising? When will they support the Bill which hon. Members on both sides of the House, including me, are promoting to discourage youngsters from smoking? Without that, youngsters will keep smoking throughout adult life and kill themselves much earlier.
    Mr. Bowis: It is certainly true that not smoking is part of a healthy life style, but the hon. Gentleman is not quite right about 11 to 15-year-olds. Over the 10 years to 1994, there was a slight decrease in smoking among young boys, while the figure for young girls remained steady. That is not good enough; I want to reduce the numbers.
    All the evidence shows that it is not advertising, but price and parental example, that has an impact. On that basis, we are setting an example that the rest of Europe should follow.
    Mr. Garnier: With regard to the target set in "The Health of the Nation", will my hon. Friend encourage and commend the work of district nurses, community health nurses and school nurses, especially those employed by the Fosse health trust in Leicestershire, who have done a tremendous amount of work to encourage all sections of the community, from schoolchildren to elderly people, to take moderate, healthy exercise so as to fulfil the targets to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. and learned Friend is right. We seek not a maoist regime of collective physical jerks but an informed society of people with the facts about exercise and life styles, who can then decide for themselves and their families what to do. There is clear evidence, as my hon. and learned Friend rightly says, that the nursing community plays its part in this. If we can get across the message about moderate exercise, moderate drinking, knowing how to cope with stress, and cutting out tobacco and drugs, we shall end up with a healthier nation that will meet "The Health of the Nation" targets.
    Mr. Barron: The targets for smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds set by "The Health of the Nation" were for a total of 6 per cent., but the figure is currently double that, so the Government are clearly failing to dissuade teenagers from starting to smoke. On the eve of national no-smoking day, what further action do the Government propose to take, given that they are clearly failing our young people?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to national no-smoking day, which we confidently expect to lead to another 40,000 people giving up. He will also want to welcome the work being done in the campaign to persuade people to stop smoking, or not to start it, and in
    774
    the three-year campaign, about to start in April, aimed at young people. The Government, the health service and the nation make tremendous efforts to persuade young people to understand the facts about smoking; and we reinforce that with a price mechanism which results in part from the Chancellor's commitment to an annual 3 per cent. real terms increase in tobacco prices. Price and example are the ways to stop young people smoking and persuade them not to start.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the oldest person in the world, Jeanne Calment, recently celebrated her 121st birthday and reportedly gave up smoking at the age of 117? Does he think that there are lessons in that for a healthy life style? If so, what are they?
    Mr. Bowis: I suspect that the message is to give up smoking at least four years before becoming the oldest person in the world.

    District Health Authorities
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what adjustments he plans to make in the basis of the capitation formula for funding district health authorities. [18392]
    Mr. Horam: The weighted capitation formula is kept under constant review, and a number of refinements are planned over the next few years.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that, even with the York refinements, the present formula is unsatisfactory, as shown by the fact that, until recently, a psychiatric consultant in Newham was dealing with a case load that was double the national average? Does the Minister agree that the 12 per cent. that is allocated to psychiatric care is unrealistic and that the 24 per cent. allocated to community care is inadequate? Should not whatever cake that is provided by the Treasury be divided equitably and be seen to have been so?
    Mr. Horam: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but we are refining the formula continually. On his point about psychiatric care, we are developing the index for community health services. It may not quite be ready for the next allocation, but none the less work is being done on it, which, I am sure, will benefit his area.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's efforts to persuade public bodies and others to use the funding with which they are provided to pay the bills of those who supply the NHS will be welcomed by those suppliers? Does my hon. Friend recall that, in 1975, under a Labour Government, when inflation was running at 27 per cent., there was no inducement to pay bills promptly, and hospital treasurers referred to 31 March as the longest day in the year, because they did not close their books on 31 March, and did not pay their bills until the end of April?
    Mr. Horam: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly agree that the Prime Minister's initiative yesterday to publish a list of shame of Departments and

    775
    the way in which they dealt with small companies is appropriate. I hope that the Department of Health will not come at the bottom of that list.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many projects for health facilities in England are currently subject to consideration under the private finance initiative. [18393]
    Mr. Dorrell: All capital investment proposals in the national health service are considered for suitability for private finance as part of the capital planning process.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State accept that some projects and locations are singularly inappropriate for private finance? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will not impose private finance criteria on inappropriate projects, thereby delaying them for long periods when they could have made rapid progress?
    Mr. Dorrell: I acknowledge that there are schemes for which public capital continues to be necessary. That is why there is still a huge public capital investment programme in the NHS. I also believe it true that the private finance initiative offers us the best opportunity that we have had in the history of the NHS to bring the facilities of the health service up to date and to give the best possible opportunity to the professions working in it to use modern technology and modern facilities to deliver the best health care to our patients.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the PFI is one of the great NHS successes? Bearing in mind its success, would he like to open a book as to when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) might decide on this one to change tack again, to follow her leader and to back the PFI?
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assertion that the PFI is an exciting thing happening in the health service.
    Ms Harman: Nothing has happened.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady might like to take into account the fact that, over the past 10 years, despite the fact that the capital programme has been much bigger than it ever was under the previous Government, more than 10 projects—costing more than £25 million—have been given the go-ahead. That is 10 projects in 10 years. I have given the go-ahead to two more projects over the past three months. The hon. Lady knows that another 23 such projects are currently being assessed in the NHS. She seems to think it surprising that a project for which we announced a go-ahead in principle three months ago, costing £40 million, has not yet been signed in every particular. She is virtually unique in thinking that.
    Mrs. Mahon: The Secretary of State will be aware that the tenders have gone out for the building of the new Halifax general hospital, and Tarmac, Mediclean or another company will presumably get the contract. Will he, first, give us his definition of clinical services and,
    776
    secondly, give the people of Halifax a guarantee that their clinical services will not be put out to tender or run by such private companies?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have given the assurance many times that I shall not approve private finance projects, the viability of which depend on clinical or clinical support services being delivered by the private contractor, unless there is clinical support locally for that particular scenario. That has been the position in the health service for many years now and I do not propose to change it.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents can now use a magnetic resonance imaging facility in the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust? It used a modified PFI, setting up a non-profit-making private company to provide that facility. Is that not tremendous news and a great example to every trust throughout the country?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What he recounts is good news for his constituents and it is good news for every citizen of the United Kingdom because it shows the way by which we will be able progressively to improve the capital stock of the NHS. My hon. Friend is a trail-blazer. My hon. Friends will all want to follow where he has led.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many increases there have been in prescription charges since 1979. [18394]
    Mr. Malone: Sixteen.
    Mr. Banks: If I had not heard that answer of 16 prescription increases from the lips of a Minister of the Crown, I simply would not have believed it. Does the Minister recall that in 1979 the prescription charge was 20p and, if that had been raised in line with inflation, it would still have been only 51p today instead of £5.50? Is it not also a fact that most of the commonly prescribed drugs cost less than the prescription charge? Prescription charges are a rip-off and, what is more, they are an inefficient rip-off. What miserable, pathetic, cringing excuse has the Minister to offer?
    Mr. Malone: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have a few facts which might put what he has been saying in perspective. First, I hope that he understands that prescription charges will contribute £310 million next year to health care. How, if the hon. Gentleman were choosing to modify that policy, would he replace those funds? I hope that he also understands that the average cost of a prescribed item is £9.30, so the prescription charge is two thirds the average cost of the prescribed item. Those are important contributions to NHS health care. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might well welcome them.
    Mr. Booth: While my hon. Friend is asked to take tablets of scorn from Opposition Members, will he accept

    777
    a dose of pride from Conservative Members? What other country in the world has 80 per cent. of all its prescription charges, regardless of cost, completely free to patients?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that fact, but that is last year's figure. I am pleased to tell him that, according to next year's estimates, that figure will increase to 85 per cent.
    Mr. Ashton: Where did the Minister get that figure of £9 from? Has he taken the highest prescription cost and the lowest to get that average, or has he taken the average of the pyramid of all drugs?
    Mr. Malone: The figure of £9.30 is an average of all items that are prescribed. I am delighted to confirm that the charge still represents good value for money for what those who make the contribution to the NHS pay. If it is put in perspective, it will be seen by the country to be very good value indeed.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend remind us who introduced prescription charges and who, after abolishing them briefly, reintroduced them at a higher rate? Will he also tell us by how much prescription charges are likely to fall under a Labour Government after a careful examination of the policy documents put out by the Labour party?
    Mr. Malone: On the second point, my hon. Friend will get absolutely no answer from the Opposition. He is right: he need look no further than the Opposition to find the answers to his first two questions.

    Young Girls (Smokers)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of 15-year-old girls who smoke regularly. [18395]
    Mr. Bowls: The survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that, in 1994, 30 per cent. of 15-year-old girls reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.
    Ms Lynne: One of the Government's reasons for not banning tobacco advertising is that it has little effect on young people taking up smoking, so why are the Government spending £800,000 on advertising smoking's dangers to teenagers? I know that that is a small amount of money, but if it has no effect, why bother to spend it?
    Mr. Bowis: We do not say that advertising has no effect, which is why we have gone to great lengths to reach a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. That agreement has successfully reduced advertising at places where young people are. There has been a 70 per cent. cut in poster advertising. We have cut shop-front and bus advertising. There are controls on advertising within 200 m of a school and close to playgrounds. Price and example are the two key ways to stop young people smoking. The hon. Lady should recall that in Spain, where smoking is a major problem, the price of cigarettes is
    778
    56p a pack, but in this country it is £2.74 a pack. Since 1990, consumption of cigarettes here has decreased by 15 billion cigarettes a year. That is the way to success.
    Mr. Sims: It is of course right for Ministers to encourage a healthy life style, as my hon. Friends have been doing this afternoon, but is it not also their duty to discourage people, especially young people, from smoking? My hon. Friend has enumerated a number of factors, but there is ample evidence that advertising is also a factor. Why do the Government resolutely set their face against the advice that they have received to impose a ban on tobacco product advertising?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we must go on seeking to influence young people, but the evidence that we have received is that a total ban on advertising would not be effective. The voluntary 'route that we and the Netherlands have followed is effective. We have had clear evidence that we need to go on educating young people about tobacco, keeping the price up, and encouraging parents and others to stop smoking, because smoking parents often lead to smoking children. That is the purpose of our campaigns, which have led to decreases in the number of people who smoke. Whereas in 1974, 45 per cent. of people smoked, in 1992 that figure had fallen to 28 per cent.
    Mr. Miller: If the Minister is serious about this, why is it that prescription charges, for medicines that people need, have gone up faster than cigarette prices, for drugs that people do not need?
    Mr. Bowis: That is a totally different question. We have one question about people who can afford to pay contributing to the cost of their medication—with, as we have heard, a colossal exemption in this country for people who cannot afford to—and another about ways of encouraging people not to smoke because it can harm their health. The price of cigarettes and the example set by parents, older brothers and sisters and other role models are crucial in winning that battle.

    GP Fundholding (Lichfield)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning general practitioner fundholding in Lichfield. [18396]
    Mr. Malone: Fundholding has brought considerable benefits to the people of Lichfield—not least improved physiotherapy and day care services at Victoria hospital. I expect all general practitioners in Lichfield to be fundholding from April.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall the prophetic words of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) when she said that general practitioners do not support the concept of fundholding? Does not the fact that, by April, every GP in Lichfield will be a fundholder show that she was just a false prophet?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Lady wishes to abolish fundholding not only for everyone in Lichfield who will be served by it from April but for everyone else.

    779
    The example in Lichfield is being followed in the rest of the country. From April, fundholding will cover more than 50 per cent. of England's population.

    Medical Research Grants
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds his Department grants to medical research. [18398]
    Mr. Dorrell: Expenditure from my Department's budget devoted to research and development in 1995–96 is expected to total £454 million. As well as the centrally funded programmes of research, that includes NHS expenditure on research and research-related activities. We are currently implementing the recommendations of the Culyer report, which are designed to strengthen our commitment to research and development.
    Mr. Booth: When will my right hon. Friend and the Government spend much more on the hundreds of thousands of children who suffer from autism? Does not that subject need more Government funds?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of research and development to the future of mental health services. It is for exactly that reason that the directorate of research and development has said that it intends to use its increasing budget to commit extra resources to research and development in the broader field of mental health.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a league table of deregulation initiatives from each Government Department. [18414]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the further measures that I announced yesterday on simplified tax registration, new rights for business against enforcement action and simplified planning and development controls. I have arranged for a copy of details of the number of regulations repealed or amended by each Department to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Steen: I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to cover the walls of No. 10 Downing street with deregulation league tables. If he did so, however, it would highlight the difference between his approach to small firms and that of the Opposition, which will certainly increase the number of rules and regulations emanating not only from this country but from Europe. Will my right hon. Friend boost his own excellent approach by promoting Ministers—and, indeed, Back Benchers—who have good ideas on deregulation, and demoting those who have not? Perhaps he will have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that he take similar action with his Front Benchers.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of deregulation. We have undertaken
    780
    comprehensive consultation with small businesses, and, as a result of what they had to say to us, we have set out a comprehensive range of action which will, I believe, have been welcomed across the small business sector. I very much regret the necessity to place extra burdens on business sometimes, but we are utterly resolute in not accepting burdens such as the social chapter which would undoubtedly make the country inefficient and cost us jobs. Small firms are the life-blood of the economy, and they deserve our support.

    Engagements
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March. [18415]
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday he gave the House the clear impression that the Government had no intention of taking away the employment protection rights of 10 million workers in private businesses? The very same day, he was contradicted by the Deputy Prime Minister. Who really speaks for the Government, and what is the true position?
    The Prime Minister: In no sense did my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister contradict what I said yesterday. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but noise from the Opposition does not make them right; they are just as wrong whether they are noisy or silent.
    I made it clear that I had no intention of announcing those changes yesterday; nor did I. I also made it clear that we intended to look at unnecessary regulations across the board: I made that clear to the House. Nothing is automatically exempt, but, having been examined, nothing will automatically be changed unless the examination suggests that that is worth while.
    Sir Terence Higgins: As the referendum is an alien concept inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy, would it not be a mistake to change the Government's policy on the issue? On a single currency referendum, does my right hon. Friend agree that a single currency, in the sense that every member of the European Union gives up its own currency in favour of it, is not likely to happen before the next general election, the one after or the one after that and that a referendum on a core currency, which would split the Union, is even less likely to produce a sensible result?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said to the House before, let me say again to my right hon. Friend that there are circumstances in which we think that it might be appropriate to have a referendum on the particular matter of whether this country should decide to join a single currency, were one to go ahead in 1999. I have made that point to the House before; that is a matter under consideration and it remains so.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall that he used to be flatly against a referendum on a single currency and then—
    Mr. Ashby: Tell us your policies.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Ashby, you are not at a football match now.
    Mr. Blair: And then the Prime Minister's position changed to say that the question of whether to have a referendum would not arise until after a British Cabinet had recommended joining a single currency. That was the position reiterated a few days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: it would be postponed until the decision about the single currency. Is that still the Government's position?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to swap quotes on these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the House is patient, I will come directly to the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I remind him, on the subject of consistency, that he once said:
    "we'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC".
    To be strictly fair, he did subsequently say that he
    "wasn't actually opposed to membership of the EC … I said at the election, within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe."
    The right hon. Gentleman did not of course say that publicly, which one might have expected from such an ambitious Member.
    I have often said before that, although I do not in general favour referendums in our parliamentary democracy, there are circumstances in which one might be appropriate. One of those circumstances is were the Cabinet to make a decision to join a single currency. I have made that clear; that is still the case. We are examining at the moment what the appropriate circumstances might be. When we have completed that examination, I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman is among the first few hundred people to know.
    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman did not actually tell us whether the Chancellor's position remains the position of the Government. Can I put this question to him? Is it still his view that collective responsibility during the course of such a referendum would still apply?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is, on the first point, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was with me and agreed in Cabinet to the examination that we are undertaking. The examination that we are undertaking covers not only the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised but a series of other important points that would need to be clear were such a decision to be taken.
    Mr. Blair: So everything is up for review. The right hon. Gentleman used to be flatly against a referendum; now he cannot say. He used to be in favour of collective responsibility; now he cannot say. Is it not the truth that on this issue—[Interruption.] They do not like it, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman now cannot say on either issue. Is it not the truth that, on this issue, as in so many other areas, he is no longer able to be a
    782
    Prime Minister taking these decisions in the interests of the country but is simply a full-time party manager trying to manage irreconcilable factions in his own party?
    The Prime Minister: One of these days, the right hon. Gentleman will learn to quit when he is losing. [Interruption.] He just made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in collective responsibility, no interest in Cabinet government and no interest in the Cabinet discussing these matters—which is precisely what his Back Benchers say about the way in which he determines his own policies. When he has had a little more experience, he will realise that that will never work in government.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not fantastic that the European Court, the European Commission and the leader of the Labour party should be so hellbent on pricing British and European workers out of jobs and exporting those jobs to the Pacific rim? If people in this country choose, of their own volition, to work 48 hours or more a week, why on earth should not they be allowed to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I strongly disagree with the ruling of the Advocate General this morning. We have one of the best records on health and safety at work across Europe. I do not believe that the working time directive can make any significant contribution to health and safety. We shall continue to argue the case that these matters are best agreed between employers and employees in the light of their own circumstances.
    European legislation such as the working time directive is ludicrous, and we will continue to tell our partners in Europe that that is so. It is precisely because of legislation like that and stupidities like that, that the European Union is becoming uncompetitive and losing jobs to other parts of the world. It is complete nonsense and it is time that people began to stand up and say so.
    Mr. Ashdown: So why did not the Prime Minister and the Government vote against the directive in the Council of Ministers? As the Prime Minister is in the business of swapping quotes, I shall remind him of two. In June 1992 he said to me, "I am not in favour of referendums and I will not put one before the British people." Last week he said, "I have never changed my view—it remains that a referendum might be the course of action to take."
    Is it not perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not the leader of his party, but the prisoner of his party? How long will it now take for him to join us in saying that, when it comes to deciding Britain's future in Europe, Britain's people have a right to a say?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that his hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has in the past admitted the differences in their party on the question of a referendum. He knows that there are sharp differences. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he favours a referendum on this issue. He should not be so uncharacteristically modest—has it not occurred to him that his splendid advocacy might just possibly change my hon. Friends' minds?
    Mr. Hayes: If my right hon. Friend has the good fortune to bump into Sir James Goldsmith, will he remind

    783
    him that, although he might think that wealth can buy privilege, it does not buy Members of Parliament and it does not buy Governments?
    The Prime Minister: The only things for sale in this House are Labour party policies to the trade unions. [Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), says, "Change the computer." We would like him to change the fact that half the Labour party's policies are determined by the trade unions, that most of its money comes from the trade unions, that it is the handmaiden of the trade unions and that it has no independence. The trade unions pay for the Labour party and they own it—it was that way, it is that way and it always will be that way.
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March. [18416]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister remember saying in April 1992, "Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday"? When he
    784
    became Prime Minister, the unemployment figure was 1,754,811, but in January this year it was 2,224,207. They are his figures. What went wrong?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has gone right with our economy, and he can then compare what has happened in this country with what has happened in other countries. If he is worrying about what has gone wrong, he should look at Liverpool council to get an indication. The leader of the Labour party said, I think, to The Spectator some time ago that one does not know the character of a party until it is in power. We have seen Labour in power in Liverpool council, and we know exactly the character of the Labour party.
    I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in Britain. We have the lowest sustained rate of inflation for almost 50 years—it is below 3 per cent; we have the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; we have an unemployment rate well below the European Union average; we have the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years; we are the largest recipients of foreign investment outside Europe, into Europe and more than the rest of Europe added together; and we export more per person than any other country in Europe. In spite of the pantomime drivellings of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, that is what has happened in this country, and it is time that he woke up and saw it. It surely would not have happened with any other Government.

Intergovernmental Conference (White Paper)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
Britain has a vision of Europe that is reflected in the White Paper that we are publishing today, which is entitled "A Partnership of Nations". We want to see a Europe that respects cultural and political diversity; that does only those things at the European level that need to be done at that level; and that is outward-looking, free-trading, democratic and flexible—a partnership of nations working together to advance their national interests. The intergovernmental conference is, of course, only one means available to us through which we intend to realise our objectives. We shall continue to work tirelessly in all the other forums for the same goal.
Successive British Governments have seen the European Union as a means of safeguarding stability and creating prosperity in Europe. There have been frustrations and controversies, but, overall, the United Kingdom has greatly benefited from more than 20 years of membership.
The Government approach the launch of the intergovernmental conference in Turin on 29 March unambiguously committed to our membership of the European Union. We shall play a leading role in the Union as one of Europe's biggest and most powerful nations. Britain's voice is influential and it has helped shape the European Community in the past. Britain was the pioneer of the single market. We have been one of the leading advocates of enlargement and of a European Union open to the world. The Government believe that the European Union will succeed only if it respects the integrity of the independent democratic nation states that comprise its membership and if it is flexible enough to accommodate their political and cultural differences. The Government are totally opposed to a monolithic, centralised, federal Europe.
The treaty on European Union—like the original treaty of Rome—calls for an
"ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"—
not, let it be noted, among the states of Europe or among their Governments. That aspiration for strengthened co-operation and friendship across the whole of Europe is a noble one, and is fully shared by the Government. However, it should not mean an ever closer political union in the sense of an inexorable drift of power towards supra-national institutions, the erosion of the powers of national Parliaments or the gradual development of a united states of Europe. The Government reject that conception of Europe's future. That is why it is crucial that national Parliaments remain the central focus of democratic legitimacy. Europe must develop with the instincts of free people in free nations. As the European Union matures, it needs a clearer sense of what it is and of what it should never aspire to be. Those principles are closely adhered to in the White Paper.
The intergovernmental conference is obviously important to the European Union's future, but it is not the only, or perhaps even the most important, challenge
786
confronting the Union. Outside the intergovernmental conference, we must prepare for the enlargement of the Union to the east and the south, which will involve the Herculean task of reforming the Community's agricultural and regional policies. Meanwhile, we cannot ignore the urgent need to strengthen Europe's competitiveness and thereby generate new jobs. There will also be hard choices to make on a single currency and on the Union's future financing. Those crucial matters do not fall within the scope of the intergovernmental conference, although the United Kingdom is developing clear and robust policies in each area.
The Maastricht treaty came into force little more than two years ago. We agree with the conclusion of the study group that was set up to prepare for the IGC that
"the Conference should focus on necessary changes, without embarking on a complete revision of the Treaty".
British objectives, such as a major reform of the common agricultural policy, do not need treaty amendment and will be pursued in other negotiations.
The IGC has yet to begin. In common with other member states, the Government are still considering their detailed approach. We may have further proposals to make as the negotiations proceed. The following represent our specific proposals for this intergovernmental conference.
First is subsidiarity. That is the key to ensuring that the Union concentrates single-mindedly on doing what needs to be done at a European level, and only that. The United Kingdom introduced that vital concept into the treaty of Maastricht. The principle has been developed at subsequent European Councils. It is having the effect that we intended, but more clarity is needed in the treaty. We shall therefore make proposals at the intergovernmental conference to entrench subsidiarity still further in the treaty.
Secondly, we are concerned at the way in which certain directives have been used or may be used for purposes that were never intended by the Governments who agreed to them—for example, health and safety articles that may be used for social policy, or fiscal measures that may be added on to single market or environmental proposals. Another example is the common fisheries policy, where the practice of "quota hopping" is preventing fishing communities from enjoying a secure benefit from national quotas, thereby undermining their entire purpose. The Government do not believe that directives, once enacted, are irreversible, and will press for treaty amendment if that proves to be the best way of ensuring that the original purpose of those directives is fully respected.
Thirdly, the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer, has said that the Union should do "less but better". Britain agrees. The volume of new legislative proposals being put forward has been falling rapidly, with only 19 proposals for principal legislation expected in 1996 compared with 61 in 1990, but there is also an urgent need to improve the quality of European legislation, and we shall be pressing for a range of measures to achieve that, including much wider consultation of interested parties via the Commission before proposals are put forward, and the automatic withdrawal of proposals that are not adopted by the Council within a given time.
Fourthly, national Parliaments are the primary focus of democratic legitimacy in the Union. The House, like the Government, rightly attaches importance to the role of

787
national Parliaments in European Union decision making. We have taken careful note of views expressed in several helpful reports by Committees of the House.
We are examining a range of ideas, including a binding period for Parliaments to scrutinise Community documents before decisions are taken in the Council, and a greater role for national Parliaments in the justice and home affairs pillar.
The European Parliament, by contrast, already has a major role in the European legislative process, including a number of new powers acquired at Maastricht, some of which have yet to be fully tested. The Government do not, therefore, see the case for new powers for the European Parliament at the expense of national Parliaments or Governments.
Fifthly, we believe that foreign and defence policy must remain the responsibility of national Governments. The common foreign and security policy has, since its inception, achieved more than many had expected. It is in this country's national interest that members of the European Union should speak and act together on the world stage where our objectives are the same. Our joint support for the middle east peace process or for democratic institutions and market economies in central and eastern Europe is an obvious example. We shall be pressing for a more effective common foreign and security policy at the forthcoming conference. But, crucially, Britain believes that the common foreign and security policy must remain based on unanimity and be intergovernmental in character if it is to succeed. As the House knows, I put forward our ideas in a speech in Paris last week. Ultimately, the common foreign and security policy will carry weight internationally only if it represents a genuinely common policy, not a majority one.
Sixthly, the intergovernmental conference will also be considering the arrangements for European defence co-operation. The Government set out their approach in a full memorandum last year. That memorandum has been attached to the White Paper that is being issued today. We believe that it would be useful to improve defence co-operation in Europe by closer co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union. We do not, however, believe in the integration of those two bodies or in the subordination of the WEU to the European Union. NATO must remain the bedrock of western security. The European Union, four of whose member states are neutrals, and which are neither in NATO nor in the WEU, cannot expect to take decisions on defence policy or on the use of military forces.
Seventhly, co-operation in justice and home affairs will be of particular importance in the intergovernmental conference, because terrorism, organised crime, illegal immigration and drug trafficking are among the greatest challenges facing modern society. They require a co-ordinated, multinational response. Substantial progress has been achieved in the past few years in that area, and Britain has proposals for improving that co-operation. But, as with foreign policy, the Government believe that those issues must remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity if they are to carry the support of the peoples of Europe. Those are matters of high political sensitivity, involving questions of national sovereignty.
Eighthly, the European Court of Justice is another area in which we shall be pressing for improvements at the intergovernmental conference. Britain is committed to a
788
strong and independent Court, without which it would be impossible to ensure even application of Community law or to prevent abuse of power by the Community's institutions. But the functioning of the court can and, in the Government's view, must be improved. There is very great concern that the court's interpretations sometimes seem to go beyond what Governments intended when laws were framed.
The Government are working up a number of proposals to enable the court to address those concerns better. They include: strengthening the ability of the court to limit retrospective application of its judgments; introducing the principle that a member state should be liable for damages only in cases of serious and manifest breach of its obligations; applying national time limits to all cases based on European Community laws, except where the member state's failure to implement a directive is in serious and manifest breach of its obligations; an internal appeals procedure; streamlined procedures for the rapid amendment of European Community legislation that has been interpreted in a way that was never intended by the Council; an accelerated procedure for time-sensitive cases; and a treaty provision clarifying the application of subsidiarity in the interpretation of Community laws. The Government will shortly be issuing a memorandum setting out their proposals in detail.
Ninthly, certain changes to the Council voting system will be necessary if the Union is to continue to function democratically in an enlarged Union. At present, the system of weighted votes is biased against the larger member states. There is growing acceptance across Europe that a way must be found to address that imbalance. Possible alternatives include changing the number of votes of larger countries so that population is better reflected. What is clear is that the system must not allow countries representing a significant percentage of the European Union's population or the major net contributors as a group to be outvoted.
Tenthly, as the Union enlarges to as many as 27 members, it will be necessary to change the current policy whereby every member state, however small, has a Commissioner and is responsible for a six-month presidency. Such a structure would quickly become unworkable in an enlarged Union.
As the White Paper makes clear, there are a number of other specific areas where the Government see scope for improving the treaty at this intergovernmental conference. Those areas include animal welfare and possible changes to the common fisheries policy, as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week. There are many areas where the countries of the Union could and should co-operate more closely in their own national interests, and in the interest of Europe as a whole. But at a time when there is concern about Europe trying to do too much, we do not believe that the rules on qualified majority voting in the treaty should be changed to make it easier to override national concerns in matters of particular sensitivity. That is why we shall oppose the extension of majority voting at the intergovernmental conference.
Nor do we favour further harmonisation or the extension of Community competence in the area of employment. The need to create jobs is one of the highest priorities facing the European Union. But jobs cannot be wished into being simply by legislating for them; it is

789
businesses that make jobs. That is why the Prime Minister negotiated Britain's social chapter opt-out at Maastricht—and our opt-out is here to stay.
The Government approach this intergovernmental conference with confidence and determination. This country's national interest is the starting point for our approach as, for all free nations, the national interest can be defined as the collective expression of the democratic process. In many spheres, our national interest coincides with that of our European partners and, in those spheres, working with our partners enables our collective effort better to achieve our ends. We shall argue constructively for treaty changes to improve the operation of the Union. We want to strengthen the treaty so that Europe can face and overcome the challenges ahead and, in particular, so that we can prepare for further enlargement.
As I have said, the conference is only one forum where we shall press for our vision of Europe. There are others and we shall argue robustly in all of them. Britain will be at the heart of the debate about the future of the European Union, because it is our future and we can best shape our national destiny by working with our closest neighbours to make a strong and effective partnership of nations.
Mr. Robin Cook: As Britain approaches the important intergovernmental conference, it is obviously in the national interest that we should, wherever possible, seek agreement on the agenda for that IGC. I therefore begin by welcoming the matters on which we agree with the Government's approach.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that we endorse what he said about the justice and home affairs pillars and the common foreign and security policy? Both subjects should be dealt with by intergovernmental agreement rather than through participation of the European institutions. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the common foreign and security policy must remain a common policy, not a majority foreign and security policy? Does he accept that he will have our full support in resisting any defence competence for the European Union, which is not where Britain should look for its security interests?
We support entirely what the Foreign Secretary said about the importance of subsidiarity in making Europe more accountable to the people, by bringing decisions closer to them. Our only regret is that the Government do not practise subsidiarity in Britain. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the Government are successful in winning back some powers from Brussels, they should not keep all those powers to themselves, but should decentralise some of them from Whitehall?
I entirely endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about the importance of the enlargement of the European Union. There can be no greater mission for western Europe than to open its doors to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe, and to support democracy in those countries as well as the stability of their borders. If, however, the Government's commitment to enlargement is to be taken seriously, the Foreign Secretary must answer the following question. Does he believe that the European Union can admit another 10 or 15 members, each clutching a veto over the full range of issues that are now settled by unanimous vote? Does he accept that he
790
has our full support in retaining a British veto on taxation, on changes to the treaty and on strategic political issues? Does he accept also that many people will consider the Government hypocritical when they discover that, after the Government presided over the massive extension of qualified majority voting and the Single European Act, opposition to qualified majority voting is now a guiding principle? Finally, I welcome most of all the positive tone of much of his statement.
The Foreign Secretary began by reminding the House that Britain had benefited greatly from 20 years' membership of the European Union. He ended by saying that we must work closely with our neighbours to ensure a strong and effective partnership. The Foreign Secretary's problem is that many of his hon. Friends do not agree with either statement. Is that not why neither his White Paper nor his statement has anything positive to offer on the three major issues facing Europe? Does he accept that Opposition Members believe that the top priority of European policy should be the provision of jobs?
Why then does the White Paper rule out the proposal before the IGC that the treaty should be amended to include employment as an objective of the European Union? The Government agreed at Maastricht to set targets on inflation, interest rates, fiscal deficits and national debt. Why can they not agree that a priority for the IGC should be to balance those monetary targets with a commitment to employment?
The Foreign Secretary said that the opt-out on the social chapter is "here to stay". Does he accept that the opt-out will go when this Government go? Does the Foreign Secretary not know that two thirds of the public want Britain to join the social chapter? Why should they not have a Government who speak for them at the IGC? Why should the workers of Britain be denied the same rights to information and consultation about the future of their country as those who work in Europe? The social chapter is a competitive issue: how do the Government, in the age of the knowledge industries, imagine that Britain can be competitive when the work force is kept in the dark?
The greatest omission from the Foreign Secretary's statement and from the White Paper was any contribution to the debate on the single currency. Does the Foreign Secretary not understand that no one will believe his claim that the White Paper does not discuss the single currency issue because it is not part of the IGC' s formal agenda? Everyone knows that the real reason why the White Paper does not mention the single currency is that Conservative Members cannot agree on what to say about it.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the views of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who tells us that he is sympathetic to the single currency, or does he agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who tells us that the Conservatives would never give up the pound? The reality is that the Foreign Secretary dare not present a White Paper that tells us where the Government stand, because he knows that it would not be possible for both his colleagues to vote for it. Will he accept the simple, honest truth that no British Government can join a single currency without the consent of the British people?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has produced a White Paper that tries to please everyone, but the result will please no one. The Government cannot make progress in Europe because they are paralysed by

791
divisions at home. Britain needs a Government who can provide a lead for Britain in the IGC on an agenda of reform for Europe. The Foreign Secretary's statement and his White Paper's silence about the great issues facing Europe have demonstrated why Britain cannot have such a Government until it gets a change of Government.
Mr. Rifkind: It is rather rich for the hon. Gentleman to remind me that some of my hon. Friends might not take the view that the European Union has been good for Britain, when he spent his first 20 years in the House and several general elections campaigning to take us out of the European Union. He went on to comment about jobs. The Labour party, as represented by the hon. Gentleman, invites derision by pontificating about the need to help employment in this country while simultaneously seeking to impose upon industry the social chapter, which, as the Labour deputy leader admitted, would destroy jobs in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman was careful not to point out that the Labour party is already committed to removing the British veto on social policy, regional policy, environmental policy and industrial policy. Its documents say explicitly that there would be no permanent opt-outs under a Labour Government. If that means anything, it means that a Labour Government would roll over and lie down whenever a majority wished to press for some other proposal. When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues say that they would never be isolated in Europe, that appears to mean that they would rather be popular than right. As long as they take that position, their views on the European Union do not deserve the respect of the House or of the country.
Mr. Norman Lamont: May I welcome much of what is in the White Paper and what my right hon. and learned Friend said about qualified majority voting and about the European Parliament, if we have to have one? Is not the real test of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said whether, over the next few years, Britain can avoid being sucked into a European state of the kind that many of our partners want, as I discovered at the previous intergovernmental conference? Does he know of any organisation in history that had an elected Parliament, a supreme court, a passport, a right of citizenship and a single currency, but was not a state?
Mr. Rifkind: I entirely accept from my right hon. Friend that the European Union is unprecedented. It will be unprecedented whether it remains in its present form, as we would like, or whether other member states press for it to go further. It is already unique, even in its present form. I remind my right hon. Friend that any changes in the treaty require unanimity, and we have made it abundantly clear that we are not prepared to countenance moves towards the supra-national structure that remains the aspiration of some of our partners.
Increasingly, the peoples of Europe—if not yet their Governments—are moving in a similar direction. We saw the way in which French opinion expressed itself during the referendum in France two or three years ago. There are similar developments in other countries. There is a historic process at work and a great debate throughout Europe. That debate may be slightly more voluble here than in some other countries, but it is already happening in France, Germany and elsewhere. It is our historic role
792
to lead those who call for a Europe that is, as we have described it, a partnership of nations and not an incipient super-state. That will be our role and we shall continue to fight for that objective.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is not the Government's strategy—if it can be dignified by that term—towards the IGC in danger of imminent collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions? How can the Government achieve a Europe that is closer to European citizens when, even now, they are denying the European Parliament—the one elected representative of European citizens—the right of access to and representation at the IGC?
How will the Foreign Secretary square what he described in his statement as the Herculean task of structural and institutional reform that will be occasioned by enlargement, with the fact that incoming states will carry vetos, but there will be no logical extension of qualified majority voting? They will be allowed a veto, but not always a Commissionership. That seems utterly illogical.
Mr. Rifkind: On the latter point, I do not think that anyone is seriously suggesting—unless the Liberals are—that, if we have 27 member states, we must have 27 Commissioners, regardless of whether there is any work for them to do. That would be a typical Liberal solution to such a problem.
On the earlier part of his question, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the wisdom of what he has just said. We oppose the European Parliament playing a negotiating role in the intergovernmental conference, because the IGC is exactly what the letters mean—it is an intergovernmental conference. The European Parliament has never had such a role in the past, and Britain and France strongly opposed such a suggestion when it was discussed in recent weeks. The French Government share our view that it would be totally unacceptable in an intergovernmental conference for the European Parliament, which is just one of several institutions, to acquire such a role. Why should it have powers that national Parliaments, which have at least as much claim to democratic legitimacy—some would say more—will not have in the IGC?
Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that Chancellor Kohl, in his widely but partially reported speech at Louvain last month, said that no one wants a centralised super-state and that one does not and will not exist? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that approach is entirely compatible with the Government's statement that they want a partnership of nations, which offers an encouraging way forward in developing a European Union that responds to the aspirations of this country and of our European partners?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that welcome statement, which Chancellor Kohl has made on several occasions. We must examine particular proposals for changing the treaty or the institutions, as to whether they would move us in that direction. I entirely accept Chancellor Kohl's good faith in making that statement, and we welcome his repeated assertion of that view.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will want to study carefully the White Paper, which

793
is important, but one's first impression is that its tone is right. I particularly welcome the emphasis on enlargement, subsidiarity, and the retention of powers by this Parliament and our own people. Following the remarks of my lion, Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I put it to the Secretary of State that the issue that worries the people of Europe more than any other, rising long-term unemployment, is not centrally on the IGC agenda. There is a connection between the level of unemployment and the existence of the commitment to economic and monetary union in the Maastricht treaty. It is precisely deflationary convergence factors that have driven unemployment up to 20 million. Surely that issue ought to be brought forward and put centrally on the IGC agenda.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments, and I agree about the crucial importance of employment and jobs. The IGC is one of several, parallel negotiations that will be taking up the time of the European Union over the next two or three years. The IGC deals with specific treaty amendments and the powers of institutions. At the same time, negotiations will begin on enlargement, and there are the continuing questions of European monetary union and the EU's future financing.
Employment will be an important feature in all those negotiations. We do not believe that the IGC can itself make a significant contribution in that regard, because amending the treaty or the powers of institutions would not, in our view, make a significant contribution to real jobs. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the one major country in the European Union that has falling unemployment happens to be the one country—the United Kingdom—that has declined to introduce the social chapter. It is worth reflecting on that point.
Mr. John Redwood: Given that the European Court is demolishing our fishing industry and social chapter opt-out, will the Government consider stronger measures to assert the rights of this Parliament against the European Court, including modifying the 1972 legislation or asserting our parliamentary right to review European Court judgments—just as the German court does?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course, we are willing to consider any constructive proposal to ensure that the European Court does not frustrate the clear objectives of Governments when they introduce legislation. That has been one of the most worrying features of a number of judgments in the past few months. I do not pretend for a moment that the task is easy. One way of completing it, as I mentioned in my statement, is to seek to amend the treaty where appropriate.
Earlier, I said specifically that if health and safety legislation is, in our view, being misused to seek to impose the social chapter by the back door, and that requires a treaty amendment, we shall seek to achieve such an amendment in the intergovernmental conference. That applies in a number of other areas, including those that I mentioned. In addition, we must review the European Court's procedures, to limit wherever possible
794
the means by which it can advance objectives that are inconsistent with those of the Governments who negotiated particular policy proposals.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the centrality of the deliberations of national Governments, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman stressed, how can—will he listen to me—how can a British Cabinet even contemplate a referendum on anything?
Mr. Rifkind: I hear the hon. Gentleman's views, and they are not relevant to the statement that I made today. As he well knows, the question of a referendum is under consideration, and I cannot usefully add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although there will be a wide welcome for his support of the centrality of the nation state, the fact remains that the European Court of Justice, with its present powers, can exist only to serve as an engine for a federated super-state? It will not be enough merely to contain the extension of those powers. If we are to maintain the supremacy and the centrality of the nation state, we shall have to reduce the powers that the European Court has given itself.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that a serious challenge has to be addressed. On the one hand, we need a European Court to ensure, for example, that the single market is properly observed. Many would like to avoid their responsibilities under the single market, if they felt that they could get away with it, and the European Court has been extremely useful in preventing that. The European Court has also been very effective in a number of its judgments. For example, it fined Italy for avoiding milk quotas. We have been happy to welcome a number of such judgments.
At the same time, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we do not want a European Court that sees its role as making law—rather than interpreting the law that Governments have agreed—or that inadvertently makes law. That is a difficult problem and I do not say that we have the absolute answer, but it is an increasing priority that must be addressed, not just by the United Kingdom, but by the Council of Ministers as a whole.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that—quite apart from the effect of the convergence criteria for a single currency, which would probably cost millions of jobs in the Union—the right to tax, to borrow and to spend belongs, in a democracy, to the people through their representatives in Parliament, and no Government—Conservative, Labour or any other—have any moral or legal authority to transfer that power to others who are not accountable to the British electorate? Therefore, were such a proposal to come forward, it would be an attempted coup d'état to try to carry that through without the explicit consent of the British people in a vote on that issue in a referendum. That is a question that cannot be avoided, however long it is before the single currency becomes the immediate issue.
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the right to tax is one of the fundamental powers of a democratic and sovereign Parliament, and that

795
is one of the reasons why any fiscal proposal must have unanimity under the current rules and why, as I commented earlier, we would be gravely concerned at any attempt to use single market directives as a means of indirectly implementing or proposing fiscal measures. If a treaty consideration is also required to prevent such an eventuality, we would not hesitate to argue powerfully for such a change.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, whether one considers the question of Bosnia, the exchange rate mechanism, fishing, monetary union or a whole range of other matters, there is a clear sense in the electorates of Europe and the United Kingdom that the Maastricht treaty has failed the people of Europe? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that the treaty amendments needed to make the changes to put that right, in the interests of Europe and the United Kingdom, require unanimity? How will he be able to achieve the objectives in the wish list that is set out in the White Paper except by renegotiating the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Rifkind: The proposals in the White Paper do not in themselves require a renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty; but I accept that some of them will be controversial. We may start off with few allies at the conference as regards some of the proposals. That does not alarm or depress me. I recall that when the Government identified the need for a British budget rebate, we started without any allies, but after robust negotiations we got what we believed to be our right. So if the merits of the argument are powerful and convincing, in due course we shall prevail.
Mr. John Home Robertson: As the cost to the British economy of exchanges with mainland European currencies is now as great as, or even greater than, the cost of our contribution to the budget of the EU, has not the time come to give positive consideration to the case for a single European currency?
Mr. Rifkind: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We believe that the proper time to consider the question of a single currency is not in this Parliament. There is no possibility of that before 1999, and the Government's view on the matter has in any case been presented clearly on previous occasions.
Sir Dudley Smith: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that NATO is the bedrock of European security and defence. Given his welcome approach, does he agree that the future of the Western European Union is probably very good if it can at last become the proper pillar of NATO in the European context? Does he further agree that a takeover by the European Union, which he has resisted today, must be repelled at all costs?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree. I welcome my hon. Friend's support, particularly as he is fully involved in defence issues affecting the WEU. The crucial point is that co-operation between the WEU and the EU makes sense, but it must be co-operation, not subordination. The membership of the two bodies is different; they have
796
different treaty bases. It would be quite improper for the EU to aspire to a defence role—that is not its function, nor should it become so.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, without the pressure of convergence, a number of our European partners would have found themselves in far greater financial trouble today—certainly on the inflation front?
Mr. Rifkind: If Governments choose to try to bring their inflation down—their public sector deficits down—that is highly desirable. If it happens throughout Europe in a rational and sensible way, the European economy can only benefit from that; but it must be done consistently with economic reality.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his White Paper, which I know has not been easy to draft, sounds extremely positive? That seems to be recognised on both sides of the House, and it is welcome. Also welcome was his warning about the unending accumulation of powers by central authorities in the Union, and the need to hold them in check. But will he explain precisely how we shall put some substance into the drive for subsidiarity and the returning of powers to nation states? Has he seen a recent report that claims that, after two years of listing all the measures that ought to be returned to nation state level by subsidiarity, the only one that has in fact been returned is a directive on the management of zoos? That does not sound as if great progress has been made.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcoming opening remarks. The first step towards achieving what we all seek is to get entrenched in the treaty not only the principle of subsidiarity but, as we now propose, some of the detailed guidelines agreed at European summits. We know that whenever issues are in dispute, it is what is in the treaty that ultimately decides what the end product will be. So that is a high priority.
There has already been a welcome reduction in the number of new directives from Brussels, in part because of the completion of the single market process and in part because of the substantial difference in style of Mr. Santer, compared with the Commission headed by Jacques Delors. The trend in that respect is encouraging, but we have one heck of a long way to go. The more subsidiarity we can get entrenched in the treaty, the easier it will be to ensure that that is reflected in how the EU operates.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not it time that some Minister or Opposition Front Bencher made it clear that political treaties do not last for ever, whether they are bilateral or multilateral? That will have to be faced at some time. We have had 23 years of this unmitigated disaster. We no longer use our own fishing fleets; the shipbuilding industry around Britain has been wrecked. Europeans never bought our coal and bought only very little of our steel. There are 20 million people out of work in Europe, and 4 million—the real figure—out of work here.
This has been a trail of disasters, and millions of people out there are longing for someone to admit that it has not worked. The halcyon days are over now. Neo-fascist parties are scattered all round Europe. Most Common

797
Market countries have different views on Bosnia, Croatia and the rest. It has to be admitted at some time. The emperor has no clothes, and all treaties eventually finish up in the political dustbin. That is where this will end.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Rifkind: I am interested in hearing these wise philosophical statements. I noticed that they were addressed to both Front Benches. I do not know whether I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in any response that I make, but I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to ponder on one thing. If the European Union has been as unremittingly bad as he implies, it is interesting that countries continue to queue up to join. At the moment, 12 countries are anxious to join the European Union. [Interruption.] There may be a variety of motives, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman perhaps slightly exaggerated his point.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I welcome the parts of my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper which, for the first time, seem to strike some good Euro-sceptic themes, such as the demands for new limits on Community action and new limits on the European Court of Justice, and, of course, the commitments to defend firmly our national opt-outs and our national veto? May I warn him, however, that if by any chance the important battles that he and his negotiating team will fight were to be lost or be surrendered by the revealingly new Europhile Labour Front Bench that we witnessed this afternoon, the House would, for the first time in many years, have to consider seriously the option of withdrawal?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that an historic debate is taking place throughout Europe. I freely acknowledge that progress with the ideas that we represent is slow, but I believe that the partnership of nations that we envisage for the European Union goes with the grain not just of British opinion, but ultimately of that in other member states as well. I do not detect any enthusiasm in any country in Europe, outside, perhaps, certain elements of the political class, for some supra-national European nation state. I do not believe that there is any enthusiasm for that. If that is the case, given that these are all democratic nations, I believe that that will show itself in due course.
Mr. Donald Anderson: That is a pipe dream. Is not the reality that the Foreign Secretary has said that he will negotiate changes to the European Court of Justice? He has said that he will robustly ask for this and for that. He is on a loser. Look at the position taken by the French and German Governments. A simple question: what will he do when his position is rejected, as inevitably it will be?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may be able to put such a remark to his hon. Friends on his own Front Bench, who are terrified of being isolated, who have said that there will be no permanent opt-outs, and who wish to give up our veto in areas where we currently have it, but he is not entitled to make such a remark to the Government,
798
who negotiated the British budget rebate, the opt-out from the social chapter, and the opt-out on the principle of a single currency. The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government's record in achieving targets that they set themselves has been exemplary.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although it is necessary for us to support the enlargement of the Community, any such enlargement would involve as a prerequisite substantial and significant renegotiation of the finances of the Community and of the common agricultural policy? Does he further agree that there are some areas where the powers and resources of the Commission need to be increased, in particular the stamping out of fraud and the policing and elimination of illegal state subsidies?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, that is indeed a high priority, and we have attached importance to improving the controls against fraud both in previous initiatives and in some of the ideas in the White Paper. I also agree with my hon. Friend that, as we move towards enlargement, that enlargement will render essential what the Government have long argued for—a major reform of the common agricultural policy in order to remove some of its more irrational features.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the IGC will give the Government an opportunity to look again at their definition of the principle of subsidiarity? Does he accept that throughout most of Europe the principle of subsidiarity means that decisions are taken at three levels—the European level, the member state level and the national and regional level? Will he now answer the point put to him from the Labour Front Bench, that that should be the position adopted by the British Government at the IGC?
Mr. Rifkind: We believe very strongly in and have practised the policy of decentralising to individual people—giving people rights. The hon. Gentleman is obsessed by institutions and believes that freedom is extended when institutions are given powers. We believe that the best way of expanding liberty is to allow people to have greater control over their own lives.
Mr. Iain Mills: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend two very quick questions? Will he clarify whether, as the White Paper suggests, we shall seriously challenge the Maastricht treaty and look for changes to it which would lead back to less pressure for federalism? Does he agree that a common currency—I ask him to be very explicit in his view—would lead to either increased interest rates or greater regional unemployment?
Mr. Rifkind: On the latter point, with regard to a single currency, that is obviously part of the current debate as to what the implications of a single currency would be. I shall not comment on that this afternoon. Those are issues that would need to be addressed before the Government could come to a judgment as to what the national interest might justify. However, with regard to any changes to the Maastricht treaty or to other parts of the acquis, we are very willing to argue robustly for changes wherever we believe that policies are being

799
implemented in a way contrary to that which the Council of Ministers intended when the proposals were originally approved.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Is not it the case that the Foreign Secretary said that British national interest would be the starting point in negotiations at the IGC? Why will he therefore not support the idea of extending majority voting in areas where there is a clear national interest, as in research and development?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that that would be in the national interest. One of the most crucial questions is control of public expenditure, and there has often been a tendency in a majority of other countries to have a much laxer approach to increasing public expenditure, including in that area, than we believe appropriate. Therefore, I do not acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman is implying.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a dilemma in people's minds on both sides of the House about the question of a referendum, in that those who defend the rights of this Parliament seem to be the ones who argue most vociferously for having a referendum, which would undercut those rights? Will he bear that in mind when approaching that subject?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind the help that we would gain as a nation from the extension of qualified majority voting to the reform of some of the areas of Community activity where we want to see reform, most particularly, perhaps, the common agricultural policy, to which he referred in his statement?
Mr. Rifkind: The reform of the common agricultural policy is already subject to qualified majority voting in every respect other than the guidelines of total expenditure. All the changes that we would wish to see can, almost without exception, be achieved under the existing arrangements of qualified majority voting in the CAP. The problem is getting the majority. That is itself a pretty difficult task, but it is not the system of voting that is the difficulty in this case.
Mr. Terry Davis: If the Foreign Secretary is serious about giving people control over their own lives, why will he not put the results of these negotiations to the British people in a referendum?
Mr. Rifkind: We do not yet know what the results of the negotiations will be. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said some time ago, we cannot contemplate how to present the results of the negotiations until we know whether they are minor, significant or substantial.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on making it plain that Britain does not want any further moves towards federalism in Europe, but may I suggest that that will not be enough for the British people and that, at some stage, we shall have to say no to one of the ludicrous laws that comes from Brussels, to disobey and
800
thus demonstrate to the peoples of Europe that we must have a looser relationship through amendment of existing treaties?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. With regard to the latter part of his question, the appropriate way to ensure the protection of the national interest is to enter into negotiation on any changes that we believe to be necessary. Of course, negotiations are always difficult—they are difficult for other countries as well. The unanimity that is a protection for us is also a protection for them, but, in such a partnership, one needs to identify what is acceptable to each member state if the European Union is to prosper.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Do not the Foreign Secretary's comments about the European Court of Justice smack of sour grapes, especially after this morning's ruling on the working hours directive, which surely exposed the Government's dishonesty in attempting to suppress information from the Department of Health, which stated that working more than 48 hours a week doubles the risk of coronary heart disease and that it is a myth that working longer hours means working more productively? Did not the Government know that their case was fundamentally flawed when they brought it? Surely the answer should have been not to bring it in the first place.
Mr. Rifkind: If the requirement of a maximum of 48 hours were to apply to hon. Members and, in particular, to members of the Government, that would represent a remarkable change in our life style. Whether it would improve my health is not for me to comment on.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's espousal today of a vision of a Europe of sovereign nation states, and I note his comment that we have few allies. If negotiations do not make satisfactory progress from our point of view, is he prepared to veto the whole process?
Mr. Rifkind: This negotiation may run for a whole year, so I shall not speculate on what might happen at the end of that process, but we can prevent any proposals from other countries that we find unacceptable. There is an absolute requirement for unanimity. That sometimes works to our advantage and it might sometimes work to our disadvantage, but it ensures that no new proposals can be imposed on us without our agreement.
Ms Jean Corston: In his statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government are approaching the IGC with confidence and determination. Why then do the Government so lack confidence in their Back Benchers that they have refused to table a motion that could be amended, for the debate on Thursday week? Is it because they know that they could not win such a vote? Is that not a sign of weakness and cowardice?
Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary; it has been the custom, in relation to all previous conferences of this sort, to provide an opportunity for the House to debate and to raise such issues at the beginning of the negotiation. When

801
conclusions were reached, the Government would of course require the support of the House if any were to be implemented.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In welcoming the publication of the White Paper and the broad thrust of the proposals—apart from the Foreign Office Euro-nonsense on page 3—should we not feel rather depressed, observing that the wording of this morning's decision by the Advocate General effectively means that the whole social chapter will be applied to Britain, despite the massive battle that the Government have put up? We give the Foreign Secretary our best wishes for his hard battle; does he agree that there is no way that he will bring any treaty to the House unless the European Court of Justice fundamentally changes its policies?
Mr. Rifkind: What we have today is an opinion by the Advocate General. We shall continue to argue our view to the Court, but as I said in my statement and in the White Paper, even if we are unsuccessful, we shall raise the matter, if necessary, in the IGC and seek the treaty or other changes that will be necessary, to ensure that the Council of Ministers' decisions are not rendered nugatory by an abuse of the procedure.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The White Paper will repay careful study. On a quick reading, however, one verb jumps from many a page: oppose, oppose, oppose. The trouble with the White Paper is that, rather than being a document of constructive Government engagement, it is a document for the Back Benchers of the Foreign Secretary's own party.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether Sir James Goldsmith will be consulted in connection with this document or future White Papers? He certainly seems to be determining Cabinet policy on the referendum at present.
Mr. Rifkind: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the document. He was good enough to acknowledge that he had not yet had a chance to do so—and, if I may say so, that was obvious from his question.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noticed that many hon. Members have mentioned the European Court of Justice. Does he accept that the European Court has become the ratchet of centralisation, mostly because it legislates by reading what it believes to be the intentions of the legislators, rather than treaty-based documents? I urge my right hon. and learned Friend, at the forthcoming IGC, to get our partners to agree to exclude that possibility from future judgments; part of the problem will then be resolved.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that good progress would be made if there were a requirement for strict interpretation of matters in the treaty or the directives. That would not eliminate, but would considerably reduce, the opportunity for the European Court to make law as opposed to interpreting it. That could only be in the public interest not just of this country, but of Europe as a whole.
Mr. Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary said that he wanted a flexible Europe, and also
802
enlargement. Given that other European Union countries are hardly likely to agree to an enlargement to 27 states without moving towards qualified majority voting, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position mean either that he favours total inflexibility and immobility in the Union, or that he is really against enlargement?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman implies that we do not already have substantial qualified majority voting. He knows perfectly well that we do: that is the whole point. We have a substantial amount of qualified majority voting on the common agricultural policy, the single market and a number of other matters. We believe that that process has gone far enough, and we do not see any need to take it further because of enlargement. I reflect on the fact that NATO, with 15 members, has never had a vote in the past 50 years—it has never had a vote in its history—yet it has been able to function very effectively. I know that we are talking about a different organisation, but to some extent similar principles apply.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, over the centuries, Britain's time-honoured role has been to speak on behalf of the peoples of Europe and to protect them from the actions of patrician and arrogant elites—whether those elites incorporate kings, emperors, dictators or Commissioners? Does he also agree that it is honourable and not sceptical to oppose policies in Europe that would produce a slow but inevitable economic decline, and that it is honourable and not sceptical to oppose forces that would still like to bring about a European corporate state? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the tone of his statement and the way in which he set out his objectives in that regard, but I ask him to consider seriously the points that have been made about the European Court of Justice. Britain is uniquely defenceless against its acts.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the European Court is a matter of increasing importance. I said in my statement that, in addition to the White Paper, we would publish a memorandum in the near future that would go into greater detail about what we believe ought to be achieved and ought to be negotiated with our partners. That demonstrates the priority that we attach to the subject.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on to other business.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will hon. Members who have been standing for an hour without being called get favourable consideration the next time that the subject of the statement comes up?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that with a major statement, it is virtually impossible to call all hon. Members who are anxious to put questions. Questions went on for more than an hour. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the Members whom I have not been able to call. I have a complete list

803
of such Members from both sides of the House. I cannot give a commitment that they will be called the next time that the subject comes before us.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment; I have not finished. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to say; I have quite a lot to say, too. I cannot give a commitment that those Members will be called next week when we debate the subject, but I shall certainly do my best to ensure that they are recognised as often as I can. I know who has been standing today, how long the statement went on and the keenness with which Members wanted to question the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During a ministerial statement, do you have to follow the convention of calling Privy Councillors, who all get called nearly every time that we have a statement? I understand that they take precedence in debates, but does that hold true for ministerial statements?
Madam Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman twice out of the last three times that the Prime Minister made a statement on European affairs at the Dispatch Box. I have a list of the times that hon. Members are called. The hon. Gentleman does very well indeed at statements. If he would let me have a list of the Privy Councillors who have had privileges over him, I should be glad to receive it. I called two Opposition Privy Councillors. One of those I called first, the other by no means first, but way down the list. I am not clear about the Privy Councillors on the Government Benches. I tend to call some of them first, but by no means do they get priority during statements. They receive a little priority during debates, but certainly not for asking questions on statements.
Mr. Banks: How many were left standing?
Madam Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman to let me have a list of how many stood in the first place. I know how many there were; I doubt whether he does.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ROAD TRAFFIC
That the Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 107) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Bates.]
Question agreed to.

Welfare of Broiler Chickens
4.36 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems.
The UK chicken flock comprises two separate flocks. One is kept to lay eggs. Most of those birds are kept in battery cages and their welfare problems are relatively well known. In the other, much larger, flock, chickens known as broilers are reared for their meat.
In Britain, we rear over 700 million broiler chickens a year, yet they are the only one of the UK's major factory-farmed animals to have no specific laws to protect them. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 contain detailed provisions on pigs, calves and battery hens. On broiler chickens, however, the law is largely silent despite the severity of the health and welfare problems encountered by the birds.
The vast majority of broiler chickens are reared intensively indoors. They are kept in huge, windowless sheds that often hold up to 30,000 birds. The sheds are so overcrowded that, as the birds grow bigger, one can barely see the floors, so thickly are they carpeted with chickens. There are fears that the maximum stocking density recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its welfare code is frequently exceeded. To solve that problem, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended in its 1992 report on broilers that the maximum stocking density should be laid down in legal, binding regulations, rather than being left, as at present, to an unenforceable welfare code. To date, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has failed to act on that recommendation. No maximum stocking density is laid down by law. I hope that my Bill will remedy that omission.
The worst welfare problems, however, stem from the broiler industry's use of selective breeding methods and rich diets to get chickens to reach their slaughter weights in double-quick time. Today's broiler chickens have been bred to reach their slaughter weights in only six weeks. That is twice as fast as 30 years ago. It is the muscle that grows quickly—the part that is sold for meat. However, their legs fail to keep pace and cannot properly support the overgrown body. As a result, each year millions of chickens suffer from painful, sometimes crippling, leg disorders.
Academic research, which assessed the walking ability of broilers, suggests that as many as 180 million chickens a year are suffering from those painful problems. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's working group found leg problems of varying degrees of severity on almost every farm that it visited. In the worst cases, chickens are incapable of sustained walking and can move only with the help of their wings or by crawling on their shanks.
Professor John Webster, head of the veterinary school at the university of Bristol, describes those broilers as suffering from a long list of painful bone and joint disorders. He adds that the chronic pain suffered by many of them
"must constitute the single most extreme example of man's inhumanity to another sentient creature".
Hon. Members should know that broiler chickens reared in Britain are growing too fast not only for their legs, but for their hearts and lungs. Many birds develop

805
congestive heart failure, which causes ascites—a pooling of body fluids in the abdomen. About 7 million broilers die of ascites each year before reaching their slaughter age of six weeks.
Professor Webster also said:
"It is absolutely not right that animals in the first weeks of their life should be experiencing heart disease; it is absolutely not right that animals in the first weeks of their life should be crippled."
That is something with which I agree wholeheartedly.
A significant number of broilers suffer from painful breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Those injuries arise because, owing to leg weakness, many birds spend long periods squatting down on the litter. That is often contaminated with droppings and prolonged contact with it can lead to the injuries to which I have referred. Wood shavings are the material most commonly used as litter in broiler sheds. After two or three weeks, however, often there are hardly any wood shavings left; what remains is largely solid poultry manure. Improved litter management is a key factor in reducing the incidence of breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. My Bill includes a requirement that litter is kept clean and dry.
Regular inspections are essential if acceptable standards of broiler health and welfare are to be achieved. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that a law should be brought in requiring all flocks to be inspected twice a day. My Bill includes such a requirement. I fear that, at present, the absence of adequate inspections means that many diseased, injured or dying birds are not being identified as such and, as a result, are given no appropriate attention or treatment.
So extreme are the health problems of today's chicken broilers that if, instead of being slaughtered at six weeks, they were allowed to live on, 80 per cent. would die before reaching the age of puberty at 18 weeks. That presents a massive problem to one particular sector of the broiler industry. The broiler breeders—the birds whose role it is to produce the subsequent generations—must remain fit and healthy into adulthood so that they can breed. If fed normally many would, as I have said, die before reaching puberty. Those that survive would suffer from reduced fertility.
To address those problems, the parent stock—the breeders—are fed on restricted rations to slow down their growth rate. One study found that broiler breeders ate only a quarter to a half of what they would have eaten if given free access to food. The researchers concluded that restricted-fed broiler breeders are
"chronically hungry, frustrated and stressed."
806
There can be no justification for keeping birds in a state of constant hunger. My Bill requires broilers to be given sufficient food to prevent hunger.
Further problems arise during what the industry calls harvesting, which is when the birds are removed from the sheds and packed into crates ready for the journey to the slaughterhouse. Teams of catchers depopulate the sheds at great speed, carrying four or even more chickens in each hand. The birds are held by just one leg, with rough handling being commonplace. The extent of the brutality involved in the catching process was highlighted in a Bristol university study that examined the cause of death in broilers that were dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse. Just over half had died from heart failure. The researchers presumed that, for those birds, the stress of catching, loading and transporting had been simply too much for them to cope with. Some 35 per cent. had died from traumatic injuries, with a dislocated hip being the most common injury. That was associated with profuse haemorrhaging and in about one third of the cases the femur—a major bone—had actually been forced into the chicken's abdominal cavity. The researchers suggested that catching and carrying large birds by one leg is conducive to dislocation of the hip. Clearly, the catching process is not just stressful and frightening for the chickens, but in many cases leads to injury and even death. My Bill requires catching to be carried out in such a manner as to avoid injury to the birds.
I believe that if people knew of the suffering experienced by broiler chickens in Britain there would be a public outcry no less strong than that occasioned by the export of calves. Urgent reforms are needed to deal with the very serious health and welfare problems experienced by chicken broilers. My Bill would require the broiler industry in Britain to take a much more responsible approach in the rearing of its chickens. I hope that, one day, the Bill will stand as a benchmark for this House and for the remainder of Europe.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Tony Banks, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Bill Etherington, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Eric Martlew, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Don Dixon.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS
Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The question before the House this afternoon is extremely simple—whether the national health service should pay its debts. Until three months ago, I assumed that there was no doubt about that, not only in my mind but in anyone else's mind. It seemed to me inconceivable that anyone could believe that a public sector national health service should be expected to or have the freedom to walk away from its debts.
  Still more unthinkable in my mind, until a few weeks ago, was any suggestion that the Opposition would think it desirable policy to advocate the proposition that the NHS should walk away from its debts—but that, apparently, is the argument that the House will hear in the debate this afternoon. I look forward to hearing that argument advanced because I am absolutely confident not only that it is one with which I shall not agree, but that no one outside this House will agree that the NHS should be free to walk away from its debts.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will have a say in what those debts are? Or will it be a case of, "You borrow as much as you like and I, Secretary of State, will pick up the tab"?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is an absurd proposition. As I shall show, controls have been, are and will remain in place to limit the borrowings of NHS trusts. They are unaffected by the Bill, which deals with a very simple question—whether NHS bodies should meet their liabilities.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Labour party dares to talk about paying debts? When the Labour party was in office, national health service hospitals never paid their debts on time and inflation was as high as 27 per cent.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right: in the late 1970s I was a business man and NHS bodies were among the customers that I supplied. In those days, the NHS was famous for paying its debts late—but that situation has improved dramatically in recent years.
  The question before the House is whether the public sector, particularly the NHS, should pay its debts. Until a few days ago, I had understood that it was Labour's position that the public sector should pay its debts—it did not occur to me that there was a distinction between the two Front Benches on this proposition. I thought that the Labour party believed that the NHS was a key part of the public sector and that it believed that the public sector, including the national health service, should pay its debts.

  809
  I thought that the Labour party was opposed to the proposition that the national health service should be a privatised institution.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I share my right hon. Friend's astonishment and dismay at the perceived attitude of the Opposition.
  Ms Harriet Harman: You have not even heard it yet.
  Mr. Dykes: I am referring to what we have seen so far in relation to the Opposition's reaction to the Bill. Is it not more ominous than that? I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing this crucial Bill. I declare an indirect interest in that I have a constituent who has a company that is involved in helping with these matters. Is not the danger of the Labour party's destructive attitude, which is ominous, in opposing the Bill—I hope that it passes—that it will stop some crucial transactions from going ahead which would help the public in terms of new hospital developments? That will be directly the fault—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a long intervention. I would like a bit of order from the Government Front Bench and from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for raising that point and he is entirely right. If the Labour party sustains the view that it is reported to have taken in this morning's Financial Times on the tapes earlier today—that the NHS should be free to walk away from its debts—private finance initiative partners will not see the NHS as a credit-worthy borrower under a Labour Government and all its trading relationships will be affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) reminded hon. Members, that would be a return to the payment record of the NHS when the Labour party was in power.
  I have introduced the Bill because approximately three months ago it was pointed out to me that there is a weakness in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—
  Mr. Alan Milburn: Why did you not know?
  Mr. Dorrell: Because I do not know the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 off by heart—and I presume that the hon. Gentleman does not either. It was pointed out to me that schedule 2, paragraph 30, of the Act—which is at the forefront of the hon. Gentleman's mind; he knows every detail of every schedule of the Act—contains the following provision:
  "If an NHS trust is dissolved under this Part of this Schedule, the Secretary of State may by order transfer—
  Ms Harman: I know.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady may know, but other hon. Members probably have not memorised this schedule. It continues:
  810
  "or provide for the transfer to—

  (a) the Secretary of State, or

  (b) the health authority, or

  (c) another NHS trust,

  of such of the property, rights and liabilities of the NHS trust which is dissolved".
  In other words, I have the power to deal with the liabilities of an NHS trust—I do not have the duty to deal with the liabilities of an NHS trust that is to be dissolved. That was the provision contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and in case any hon. Member thinks that this is an oversight associated specifically with that Act, it is worth referring to the fact that the National Health Service Act 1977 contained an even more general proposition, which is that an order of this kind may contain
  "such provisions for the transfer of officers, property, rights and liabilities as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
  In other words, the door is left completely open—particularly in relation to the reorganisation of a trust—for the Secretary of State to reorganise the trust and to make no provision for the liabilities of that trust. That seems to me to be a wholly unsatisfactory basis on which to expect people to trade with NHS trusts.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. John Gunnell rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way in a moment. It is unsatisfactory for people engaging in long-term investments to support a trading relationship with an NHS trust. As I said to the Treasury Select Committee a few days ago, it is equally unsatisfactory from the point of view of the potato supplier to the hospital. Whatever the basis of the trading relationship, it is completely unsatisfactory that traders dealing with trusts should face a position where the Secretary of State has the power to reorganise the trust without making any provision for the liabilities of the trust.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the point that the Secretary of State has made and I also understand the original Act. If national health service trusts have to submit their accounts every year—and they are looked at by the regional office, by the executive or the Secretary of State—and if all capital projects have to go through the accounting officer procedure and be approved, what are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State envisages that a trust would be in such a position that it would be at the risk of ending its life by the writ of the Secretary of State with a great amount of debt yet to be paid? If that were to happen, why would it not be dealt with in the normal way—by an insurance policy that ensures that the debts will be met?
  Mr. Dorrell: I followed the point made by the hon. Gentleman until his last phrase. The answer to the first part of his question is that I can conceive of no circumstance where it would be in the public interest for me to use the discretion that is left to me in the legislation, and that is why I am in favour of removing it. The hon. Gentleman asked why a trader cannot insure against the possibility that I might use that discretion. Surely the

  811
  answer is that it would be absurd for the public sector to pay, through a trading relationship with a trader, to insure against a risk of the Secretary of State doing something that he has not got the slightest intention of ever doing. It would be much cheaper and much cleaner to remove a discretion that I have made it abundantly clear that I have not the slightest intention of ever using.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand what the Secretary of State is saying. He concedes that one way of dealing with it is that there is an insurance that covers the risk of any arm of the NHS being in a position where it could not meet its debts—I was not talking about the insurance of the trader with the NHS, but about NHS bodies, such as the trust. That is one way of doing it, but the Secretary of State is saying that he would rather not do it that way but would rather legislate so that it is on the face of an Act.
  Mr. Dorrell: That is exactly the position: I can conceive of no circumstance in which it would be legitimate for a Secretary of State to use the discretion. Therefore, I am in favour of removing the discretion—and that is the sole purpose of the Bill. As soon as I was told about the position in the existing legislation, I decided to remedy it. I have no doubt whatsoever about the public's view of this issue: they regard the national health service as their health service; they believe that the national health service should meet its obligations, just as the overwhelming majority of our fellow countrymen believe that they have a duty to meet their obligations; and they would be outraged at the proposition that I should come to the Dispatch Box and defend the right of the NHS to do a moonlight flit on its liabilities.
  That is the case that the Labour party is reduced to making in this debate. It is reduced to defending the right of any Secretary of State for Health to walk away knowingly from the liabilities properly entered into by the national health service. It is no good the hon. Member for Peckham saying that that is not true, because that will be the result of voting against the Bill.
  Mr. John Spellar: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—he has made the same point about eight times and at different levels of volume. As the National Health Service Act 1977 contained a similar provision, why have these problems been created so suddenly?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have made no secret of the answer to that question, which is that the issue has not previously arisen. If the inadequacy of the present provision had been drawn to the attention of any of my Conservative or Labour predecessors, they would have tackled it as I am tackling it. [Interruption.] I have answered the question—because it was pointed out to me. [Laughter.] It seems to me that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is finding great difficulty in following the debate. He cannot hear what the Secretary of State is saying.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is not difficult to defend the proposition that if someone says to a Secretary of State in charge of a major public service that the condition of the current law is unsatisfactory—and I consider the condition of the
  812
  current law and find it unsatisfactory—I should place the unsatisfactory provision before the House, as I have done, and ask the House to remedy its unsatisfactory nature.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The Secretary of State said several times:
  "It was pointed out to me".
  Who pointed it out to him? Was it the banks, who were failing to support PFI schemes? Is that why this legislation is being rushed through the House tonight?
  Mr. Dorrell: We have legislation that is brought before the House in the usual course of events to remedy something that is unsatisfactory in the present state of the law. The Opposition ask who pointed it out. It was the people with whom we are negotiating about the private finance initiative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House expresses surprise. If the House had read the evidence that I gave to the Treasury Select Committee a fortnight ago, it would have found that I have never made a secret of the fact that those people raised the matter. It does not seem to me to matter who raised it. What matters—
  Mr. Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: Not at the moment, because I am answering the previous intervention.
  What matters is the simple question, should the NHS preserve its current discretion to walk away from liabilities properly entered into? That is the only question in the Bill that the House must decide. If Opposition Members walk through the No Lobby later, they will be voting for the NHS to walk away from liabilities properly entered into by the management structure established by the House and charged with managing the national health service.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Secretary of State has just admitted that there are no conceivable circumstances in which the Secretary of State and the NHS would walk away from liabilities. Why, therefore, did those individuals or groups of individuals draw that problem to the attention of the Secretary of State? Did they not believe the Secretary of State about that?
  Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps they have heard the utterings of Opposition Members and are worried that Labour Members might at a time far in the future walk away from the liabilities of the health service. In those circumstances, potential traders are entitled to the assurance that the NHS will not exploit a freedom to do a moonlight flit. It is the type of behaviour that, when undertaken by directors of bankrupt shyster companies, leads to those directors being revealed on television by Esther Rantzen and her like. To argue as a specific proposition that people should be free to walk away from a liability entered into legitimately, is an activity associated with shyster, second-rate lawyers. I am amazed that the Labour party and Labour Front Benchers should want to have anything to do with such behaviour.
  Mr. Gunnell: Would it not be fair to say that the Secretary of State has been told that none of the contracts for those private sector initiatives can be signed because the clause is not in place?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is certainly not true that no PFI projects can go ahead because of the absence of the clause.
  Mr. Gunnell: Signed.
  Mr. Dorrell: Signed, go ahead—I accept the amendment. I can say that with total confidence because 48 schemes, costing a total of £225 million, in the NHS private finance initiative have already gone ahead.
  Mr. Spellar: How many are held up?
  Mr. Dorrell: Because they are in the national health service, they are all health-related schemes. We are negotiating with partners the details of arrangements that have already been announced, and later I shall talk about the others that are still being assessed. We are negotiating with partners the terms on which those contracts will go ahead. The inadequacy of the law was revealed in the context of those discussions, and it seems to me straightforward that the House should remedy a weakness in the law.
  I have absolutely no doubt that the public view of that question would be that the NHS should pay its debts. That is the question that the hon. Member for Peckham must answer. The Bill does not change the powers and duties of trusts, which are set out clearly in the legislation. Schedule 2, paragraph 6 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 says:
  "An NHS trust shall carried out effectively, efficiently and economically the functions for the time being conferred on it".
  The financial control regime of trusts places three clear financial obligations on trusts—to break even taking one year with another, to stay within the external financing limit of the trust and to deliver a 6 per cent. return on average relevant net assets.
  Ms Harman: Where is the statute?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is in section 10(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Section 10(1) of the 1990 Act imposes an explicit obligation that every trust
  "shall ensure that its revenue is not less than sufficient, taking one financial year with another, to meet outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account."
  That is one of the three financial obligations of the trusts. The other two were set out clearly in the financial control regime.
  I give the hon. Lady an undertaking. If she can produce any demonstrable example of trusts borrowing irresponsibly and using their power to borrow in a way that does not match the external financing limit controls and the requirement to operate effectively, efficiently and economically within the 1990 Act, I will use the power set out in section 10(2) that allows me to define that as a statutory obligation. At the moment, there appears to be no problem for me to tackle on the issue that the hon. Lady has raised. In those circumstances it would be, to put it mildly, an absurd over-reaction to a debating point
  814
  that the hon. Lady likes making, for me to use a statutory power that has not been demonstrated to be necessary. The answer to the question, "Where is the power if it is necessary?" is on the face of the 1990 Act.
  Ms Harman: First, does the Secretary of State agree that he cannot use his powers under section 10 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to restrict the rights that trusts have under schedule 3 of that Act to borrow without his approval?
  Secondly, does the Secretary of State agree that the reason why trusts have not borrowed from the private sector hitherto, despite the fact that they have had the power to do so since 1990, is that they have been unable to provide security for those loans because they have been unable to mortgage their assets? The Bill provides that security, and that is why the trusts will start borrowing.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is wrong on both points. First, section 10(2) of the 1990 Act says:
  "It shall be the duty of every NHS trust to achieve such financial objectives as may from time to time be set by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury".
  That is a clear power, which I could use to give EFLs the statutory backing if it were demonstrated to be necessary. The hon. Lady must demonstrate that it is necessary, and she has not done so.
  Secondly, the answer to the question, does the Bill provide a basis of guarantee or allow a lender to a trust access to the assets of the trust, is no, it does not; and the bar on the pledging of assets of trusts remains in place because it is in the statute.
  I have answered both questions the hon. Lady asked me directly and in the negative. They are irrelevant to the key question that the House must address today, which is not whether the controls are adequate—although I should be very happy to debate that. If the House wants to demonstrate the need for extra controls on NHS trusts, it must be demonstrated that existing controls are inadequate. The hon. Member for Peckham has not done that. Whether the controls are adequate or inadequate does not alter the fact that I believe that NHS trusts and the NHS as an institution should meet the financial obligations that it properly takes on. That is the Bill's only effect.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State has, as yet, left two questions unanswered. The hon. Member for Peckham asked whether he agrees that it is open to trusts to borrow without his approval. The second question, which has not yet been asked, is why the original power in the 1990 Act is a power of discretion—either to pick up the tab or not to pick it up? What reasons was the Secretary of State given by his civil servants for the fact that the Bill, as originally drafted, gave him a discretion that is no longer thought to be appropriate?
  Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question—I have asked that question myself—rests on the proposition that the same principle was carried forward from the 1977 Act. There are currently not many people advising me on the drafting of the legislation who remember the precise arguments that went on nearly 20 years ago. I have no intention of ever using that discretion, as I have already made clear to the House, which is why I am in favour of getting rid of it.

  815
  On the question about the nature of controls on trust borrowing, that is set out in the financial regime of trust financial control. If it were shown that the regime was in some sense flawed and that trusts were not living within the controls set out in this document, I would be the first to argue—as one would expect of a former Treasury Minister—that we need to take effective action to ensure that trusts live within their financial obligations.
  Trusts can borrow without my specific consent, but they must first show that they are borrowing in a way in which good value is delivered. The overwhelming scale of trust borrowings—[Interruption.] They do because they have a statutory obligation, which I have read out to the House, to trade in an effective, efficient and economical manner. A trust that borrows expensively when a cheap alternative is available would very quickly and quite properly find itself before the Public Accounts Committee, with its accountable officer sitting beside Mr. Alan Langlands, the accounting officer for the NHS, explaining why it was borrowing expensive money when cheap money was available in the public sector.
  The hon. Member for Peckham, however much she may throw up dust and fog around this issue, has failed to obscure the central question of whether the NHS will stand by its liabilities. That is the only question that the House is being asked to decide today. I assure the House that if the trust financial regime is shown to deliver inadequate control on trusts, we shall of course address that inadequacy. I have given that assurance three times now. She has not, however, shown that the trust financial regime is inadequate.
  The hon. Lady has spoken to many people on this subject, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say in the debate. If she plans to argue that we need extra controls on trusts' financial obligations, she will have to demonstrate that they are not staying within the existing financial regime, which provides all the controls that could possibly be required.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The issue of the trusts is central to the Secretary of State's argument. He has raised the issue of the trust walking away from its responsibilities. As all trusts are approved by the Secretary of State and are responsible to him, will he tell us how a trust will be able to walk away from its liabilities?
  Mr. Dorrell: The Bill's purpose is to provide that trusts and the NHS as a body cannot walk away from their liabilities. I do not think that a public sector body should have that freedom, which is why I am proposing to withdraw from the Secretary of State the discretion in the current law to reorganise a trust without providing for its liabilities.
  The answer to how much a trust can borrow is the amount set out in its external financing limit.
  Ms Harman: It is £5 billion.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says that the amount that trusts can borrow is £5 billion. That is perfectly true. The amount that one trust can borrow is set out in its EFL, or in the amount that is provided for in the figure underlying its EFL.
  816
  The Bill does not change any of those controls, and no evidence has been produced to suggest that the controls are inadequate. As has already been revealed in this debate, the fact is that the Bill changes—[Laughter.] It changes nothing, because I have not the slightest intention of using the discretion that it removes. Therefore, the Bill will have no practical consequence—unless one believes that the members of a successor Government want to protect for themselves the freedom to walk away from NHS liabilities that have been properly entered into. That is the Bill's only effect and it introduces only that change. It changes nothing unless one believes that a successor Government want the freedom to walk away from NHS liabilities.
  The proposals in the Bill cannot be answered by talk about the approvals process, as that would be a red herring. I am quite happy to defend the approvals process, but that is not the question before the House. The question is whether a debt, once entered into by the NHS, should be paid. If we believe that the answer to that question is yes, we should vote in the Aye Lobby at the conclusion of the debate. If we believe that the answer is no—
  Mr. Spellar: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way in a moment. I have plenty more to say; I am not finished yet.
  If the answer to that question is no, we are entering a quite extraordinary world, in which the first element will be a completely new definition of stakeholding. Opposition Front Benchers are now defining for us their belief that, should someone be a creditor of the NHS under Labour, he will no doubt hold a stake in it, but he cannot be sure of being paid. He would be given a piece of paper that was of as much value as a voucher issued by the Tsarist railway system. Opposition Front Benchers want to retain the freedom to walk away—[Interruption.] I am absolutely on my place. They want to retain the freedom to walk away from liabilities, in the manner of a tinpot third-world country, which is exactly the type of behaviour we condemn when it is unearthed in the darker fringes of the corporate sector by investigative journalists.
  I should have thought that Opposition Front Benchers would want nothing whatever to do with such a practice. That is the type of shyster trick beloved of smart Aleck lawyers, who pay attention to the small print without recognising the liability that every taxpayer who pays for the NHS wants us properly to respect. Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave at the way in which Opposition Front Benchers are demeaning the name of the service that he established. They want to preserve for themselves the freedom that they condemn in the dark fringes of the corporate sector.
  Mr. Spellar rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I have excited the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), and I give way to him.
  Mr. Spellar: The Secretary of State has been slightly confusing. Stripping away all the rhetoric, he has given a very interesting redefinition of risk management and risk assessment in the health service and under the PFI. Is he saying that the PFI will be reckoned as guaranteed by the

  817
  Department of Health, with no risk to the private sector? How does that affect its relationship to the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am saying no such thing. All that I am doing is removing from a private sector trader dealing with the health service—whether a PFI partner or the famous potato dealer—the risk that a Secretary of State might walk away from a properly defined liability on the health service. The whole point of the PFI—which I shall address later and which I am sure that the hon. Member for Peckham will want to touch on in her speech—is that it defines a series of risks that do not rest on the health service or the public sector and are therefore not liabilities of the public sector which are dealt with in the Bill. Those risks are taken by the private sector partner—that is the point of the PFI.
  The purpose of the Bill is not to address those liabilities and risks, but to address the relationship between every NHS trust and every supplier of goods and services to that trust, such as the PFI contractor and the potato supplier. My belief—I am sure that it is held by all my hon. Friends—is that the NHS should honour its obligations to those people while understanding that they have taken on properly assessed commercial risks in the establishment of that trading relationship with the health service.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I must make progress.
  I said that Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave at the prospect of the NHS being dealt with in that way. I notice that other, more contemporary people, do not associate themselves with the tactics of the hon. Member for Peckham. The hon. Lady has tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill, which she believes is exclusively related to the PFI—I do not deny the Bill's relevance to the PFI, but it extends far beyond it. The hon. Lady believes that the Bill relates only to the PFI; I therefore find it passing strange that not one member of the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team was prepared to put his or her name to the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Lady.
  The shadow Chancellor, the shadow Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) have all been visiting potential PFI partners and trying to sound orthodox. They have been trying to underwrite Labour's respectability in that community. Members of the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team who are touring that circuit will find their hosts choking on their prawn cocktails when they explain to them that they want to preserve the freedom to walk away from private finance liabilities.
  The hon. Member for Peckham must answer another question in the context of the debate. She does not merely have to explain why the shadow Treasury Front-Bench team wants nothing to do with the reasoned amendment, but whether she has yet resolved her difficulties with her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench about their attitude to the PFI. It is not only every potential PFI partner, but everyone working in the health service and every voter who want some clear answers.
  Ms Harman: I shall give them.
  Mr. Dorrell: I look forward to that as it will be a first.
  818
  I shall remind the hon. Lady of where she is coming from in terms of the obscurity of Labour's position on the PFI. On the "Today" programme on 28 November the hon. Lady said that the PFI was
  "a new trick to privatise the Health Service."
  That was the hon. Lady's line, and it was not just a slip of the tongue. We both attended a public meeting in Birmingham town hall at the beginning of this year and, with my own ears, I heard her say:
  "I don't call it a Private Finance Initiative, I call it a privatisation initiative."
  The hon. Lady has twice taken that line—she was explicit and specific: she is against the PFI.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) used to be a member of Labour's Front-Bench team. She made it clear that the hon. Member for Peckham was not the only one to hold that view. The hon. Member for Dulwich said:
  "The Private Finance Initiative is the Tories' route map to the privatisation of the Health Service."
  Those views are entirely wrong, but, more interestingly in the context of today's debate, they reveal the position of the shadow health team on the PFI: its members are explicitly and clearly against it.
  The hon. Member for Peckham says that the Bill is all to do with the PFI and I am responding to her concerns about that. If the Bill is all about the PFI, the House, in order to consider the Bill, needs to know where the hon. Lady stands on the PFI. We need to hear the hon. Member for Peckham reconcile her position with that of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
  While the hon. Member for Peckham says that she is against the PFI and calls it the privatisation initiative, the hon. Member for Rother Valley told the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in January:
  "We do not disagree with the PFI, how could we? It was Labour who first thought of partnerships between the public and private sector."
  The hon. Lady says that she is against the PFI; the hon. Member for Rother Valley says that he is in favour of it and that it would be inconceivable for the Labour party to oppose it.
  At least the hon. Member for Rother Valley has the leader of the Labour party on his side. The leader of the Labour party was explicit about the PFI and health when he said at the party's conference in 1994—
  Mr. Milburn: We have heard this old story before.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says that it was a long time ago—it was 17 months ago. Are we to believe that the Labour party has changed its position on the subject in 17 months? Are we to believe that the leader of the Labour party goes to his party conference and sets out his stall and, 17 months later, a member of the Labour party's Front-Bench team says, "That was all 17 months ago"?
  Seventeen months ago the leader of the Labour party said:
  "We would get public and private finance working together in transport, in housing, in capital projects in health and education."
  Ms Harman: Yes.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says yes—public and private finance will work together in health and education.

  819
  I look forward to hearing the hon. Lady explain to the House how she anticipates getting public and private finance to work together while defending the proposition that the NHS must be free to walk away from its debts. Those propositions make strange bedfellows and I look forward to hearing the hon. Lady's explanation.
  As well as making that statement at the Labour party conference, in the Budget debate in the autumn of 1995, the leader of the Labour party was once again explicit when he said:
  "The PFI is right in principle."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995: Vol. 267, c. 1077.]
  We need the Opposition Front-Bench team to tell us their policy on the PFI in the health service. Does the Labour party believe that it is a privatisation initiative? If it does and it can demonstrate that, I imagine that most hon. Members would make common cause against it. It is because I do not believe that it is a privatisation initiative, but believe that it reinforces the delivery of high quality public health, that I am a strong supporter of the PFI. In that, I enjoy the support of the hon. Member for Rother Valley and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but I do not enjoy the support of the holder of the shadow health brief, the hon. Member for Peckham. I look forward to hearing how the hon. Lady reconciles those positions.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend realise that my constituents do not consider the PFI as a privatisation initiative, but see it as a massive opportunity for a new district general hospital? The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) does not have the support of Gravesham Labour party, which has been deafening in its silence on the subject because it supports the PFI as a great hope for the future.
  Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks for his own constituents, who rightly see the PFI as the best way of delivering—not just to his constituents—more than 25 other big projects in the health service. They are currently being assessed and some of them have already been approved—25 projects costing £25 million or more are all going ahead under the PFI. Three of them have been given the go-ahead already. At Budget time I announced that we were taking the PFI up a gear and would be assessing all the projects coming through the system. I anticipated that the go-ahead for those projects would be announced at the rate of about one a month. That was three months ago and so far we have approved three projects. I regard that as delivering almost precisely on the prediction that I gave at the time of the Budget.
  Mr. Martlew: About 18 months ago the second stage of the Cumberland infirmary in my constituency was ready to go to tender, but it was stopped because of the private finance initiative. My constituents are suffering as a result of the PFI, which is simply a delaying tactic designed to save the Government some money.
  Mr. Dorrell: Anyone who believes that the PFI—which offers the possibility of investing in health service capital stock without any need for Treasury authorisation or queuing for rationed capital within the context of conventional public sector capital planning processes—is a delaying tactic with regard to NHS capital investment
  820
  is living in a different world from the one in which I have lived all my adult life. The hon. Gentleman knows that the project in his constituency is being assessed, together with 25 others. He knows also that the Government have increased publicly funded capital investment in the health service by nearly 70 per cent. in real terms, whereas Labour cut it by 30 per cent.
  Despite the increased pace of capital investment in the health service, 10 big projects have gone ahead in the past 10 years—that is roughly one a year. Since the programme was launched on a higher plane at the time of the last Budget, we have been announcing projects at a rate of one a month. Exchanging a system that approved projects at the rate of one a year for a system that is currently approving them at the rate of one per month seems a significant improvement—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many sedentary interventions—not least from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Dorrell: To move from one project a year to one a month is, by anyone's definition, a significant increase in the health service's capital investment programme.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Name them.
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall name three schemes for which I have announced the go-ahead: the South Buckinghamshire NHS trust, St. James's in Leeds and the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospitals NHS trust. They have received the go-ahead since the Budget.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that, in talking about the "go-ahead", he is referring to a go-ahead on the planning stage? Does he concede that the contract has not been signed in Leeds? We are led to believe that it will be the first contract signed, which means that the initiative has not yet provided anything on the ground: all the projects are still at the planning stage.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the initiative's not having provided anything on the ground. I have referred to 48 smaller schemes and £225 million which has been provided under the private finance initiative. It is true that none of the three big schemes that I announced since the Budget has been signed. At the time, I would have been amazed to hear that the contracts would be signed within three months. It is an absurd idea that one can sign the contract for a £38 million or £40 million scheme—sketch it out on the back of an envelope and sign all the documentation—within a week. Anyone who believes that has never met a lawyer.
  Labour Members live in a totally surreal world. We announced the go-ahead for one scheme in December and for the other two in January. It is totally absurd to suggest that I should come to the House with a great pile of contractual documents six weeks after the announcement of intent.
  If the House is to address the issue seriously this afternoon, it must recognise that the health service faces a huge task in ensuring that it puts in place all the capital stock that can be used to deliver high-quality health care into the next century. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)

  821
  recognise that fact, but apparently the hon. Member for Peckham does not. Today she has the opportunity to emerge from the shadows and to make two things clear to the House and to the country: first, that she believes that the NHS should pay its debts; and, secondly, that she favours the kind of public-private partnership that has been espoused by her hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and by her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and which is being carried forward by the Government. The time has come for her to respond to those two simple points.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether it is the fault of the amplifying system or the Secretary of State, but we should not have to listen to his shouting in future debates. It is a serious point: whatever the merits of his argument, the Secretary of State shouted at us for almost 50 minutes. Perhaps the amplifier volume could be turned down so that we are not blasted out of the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a serious point of order.
  5.35 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill because it does not include safeguards against government abuse of the Private Finance Initiative to advance privatisation of the NHS with damaging effects on patients and staff; gives an open-ended commitment on the part of the taxpayer to honour the liabilities of NHS Trusts irrespective of the manner in which they have accrued; and fails to ensure government appraisal and control of potential liabilities or their adequate scrutiny by Parliament."
  This is a short Bill, but, if passed by the House, it will have long-lasting consequences for the national health service. The legislation raises five key points. First, it shows that the Government's promises about hospital building are set to be broken. Up and down the country, new hospitals promised by the Government are no more than castles in the air. The Secretary of State said that he is moving the programme to a higher plane—it is not merely a higher plane: it is in outer space. It is not about hospitals on the ground, but castles in the air.
  Secondly, the Bill exposes the private finance initiative as a Trojan horse for privatisation. Thirdly, it offers a blank cheque of up to £5 billion from the public purse as the price of baling out the shambles of the Tories' private finance initiative. Fourthly, it ends the role of the Secretary of State in prioritising and agreeing our hospital building programme. The Secretary of State looks puzzled about that. When people read the Treasury Select Committee minutes they will understand why he is puzzled: he is slightly behind the game. When he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee he did not know that trusts have the power to borrow. The Secretary of State still looks puzzled. In the course of my speech, I shall help him to understand the unintended consequences that the Bill will have for him and for any future Secretary of State.
  Fifthly, the presentation of the Bill raises serious questions about the Secretary of State's competence to run the health service or to look after public money.
  822
  The problem that the Bill tries—and fails—to sort out began in 1990 when the Tories turned NHS hospitals into trusts. They made them independent and freestanding from Government and gave them the power to borrow. Because of the independence afforded by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the Secretary of State had the discretion only to take over the "assets, rights and liabilities" of trusts in the event of their "dissolution". He did not have to take over their liabilities. It is quite wrong to suggest that the parliamentary draftspeople were dozing and included provisions in the 1990 Act simply because they existed already.
  Under this Bill, the Secretary of State will be compelled to take over the liabilities of NHS bodies in the event of their "ceasing to exist". So he must stand behind trusts' borrowings, but he does not have any power over how much they borrow, which trusts do the borrowing and why they borrow. That is why we oppose the Bill. The effect of the legislation, considered in conjunction with the rights of trusts as stated in the 1990 Act, is to give a blank cheque to independent trust hospitals. The Secretary of State will have to underwrite any liabilities that are incurred, even though he has no control over how they are incurred. By his own hand—pushed by the bankers, of course—the Secretary of State will have the worst of all worlds—responsibility without power.
  The reason why the Secretary of State rushed the Bill into Parliament without properly thinking it through has nothing to do with the potato traders. All his talk about traders is disingenuous. When he says traders, he means bankers. The Secretary of State rushed the Bill into Parliament without properly thinking it through because he is a desperate man.
  The Secretary of State's private finance initiative policy for new hospital building is a shambles. The Government have made themselves completely dependent on private finance for hospital building. They have slashed the public funds for NHS capital projects. The Budget cut the NHS capital programme by 17 per cent. in just one year. The Secretary of State promised that the gap would be filled by using private money—magic money—and that he would use his Treasury acumen to bring it in. Even if he delivers everything that he promised on the PFI—a total of £135 million next year—that is less than half what he has cut from the NHS capital programme.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: In a moment.
  In their speeches and the briefings that appeared in the press, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the strong impression that building was about to begin on PFI-based new hospital contracts. New hospitals have been trumpeted for Norwich, Carlisle, Amersham and Swindon. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State now says that is absolutely untrue. Is he telling the House that it will not happen?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady draws no distinction between Amersham, where I have made an announcement that the hospital is to go ahead, and Norwich and Carlisle, where the projects are still subject to assessment. If we are still assessing the projects, how can I possibly say that they will go ahead? I have never said—nor would I say—that decisions have been made to go ahead with those

  823
  projects. We have decided to go ahead with three hospitals since Budget day and I listed them in the House this afternoon. The others are subject to assessment, as the hon. Lady and the House would expect.
  Ms Harman: I cannot answer for anything that the Secretary of State might say. I simply refer to his speech to the Royal College of Physicians on 21 November. If he is telling people in Norwich, Carlisle, Amersham, Swindon, north Durham and Bishop Auckland that they cannot expect the hospitals that he promised, we want some clarity on that. The Secretary of State trumpeted them as his six flagship hospitals, first on the front page of The Independent on 30 May 1995, secondly, in the Health Service Journal on 5 October 1995 and, thirdly, in The Independent on 27 November 1995. In his speech to the Royal College of Physicians on 21 November, the Secretary of State said:
  "Over the next few months … we shall see a regular flow of new projects",
  but it seems to be a flow of projects for paperwork in the Department of Health, not for building work on new hospitals.
  What is the real position? Just last week, the Secretary of State was asked by the Treasury Select Committee whether any PFI contracts had actually been signed. The answer was no. None of the deals for the new hospitals has been signed. We have to watch him when he says that they have been agreed or given the go ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr.. Gunnell) was absolutely right about that.
  The Secretary of State says that he has agreed contracts, but he is not paying for them. The local hospital trust has agreed them, but it is not paying for them. The people who are supposed to be paying for them—the banks—have not agreed them, so now he is backpedalling fast and no contracts have been signed. [Interruption.] Hon. Members say that he is not. They should have seen him on the Select Committee, when he said that he was trying to play them down. He is playing them down now because he is in deep trouble as the PFI is a shambles. The Secretary of State told the Treasury Select Committee that he could not say when the contracts will be signed. Now he is trying to play them down, but his promises to people throughout the country are set to be broken.
  The Secretary of State follows a common pattern with each of the six flagship hospitals. First, he announces a new hospital, then there is a delay because the project has to be referred to get private finance, then a private finance initiative proposal emerges, but it involves far fewer beds than there are now or than were originally planned and finally, there is nothing—no contract is signed and no work begins. It is the same story up and down the country.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: It is fantasy finance.
  Ms Harman: As my hon. Friend says, it is fantasy finance. Let us look at each of the flagship hospitals. The first is Norwich and Norfolk district general hospital.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I shall give way when I have dealt with the six flagship hospitals. I shall also deal with the hon. Gentleman's hospital because the Secretary of State will not tell him when it will be started.
  824
  Let me quote from a Department of Health press release about the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. The Secretary of State is screwing up his eyes to read it. Let me read it to him. It is headed:
  "Go-ahead for new £100 million hospital in Norwich".
  The only problem is that it is dated 1990. There has been plenty of time to write on the back of envelopes, but no hospital has been built. In the press statement, the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, confidently told local people:
  "Construction for the new hospital is expected to start in 1992"—
  but it did not. Six years after the first announcement, there is still no hospital. No contract has been signed and the people of Norwich are still waiting for their new hospital. When will they get it?
  Mr. Dorrell: I was a junior Health Minister in 1990. I was responsible for what was rather quaintly called unconventional finance. Since then, the rules for the use of private capital within the health service have been changed, as the Opposition often argued should happen, and have moved in the direction for which the Opposition argued. The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that an announcement made six years ago is now a great deal closer to fruition.
  Ms Harman: The Secretary of State said that he was Minister for unconventional finance. He is now Secretary of State for unconventional finance and where is it?
  It is the same story in Carlisle. Plans for a new hospital were developed as long ago as 1989. By summer 1994, the trust had finalised and submitted its plans. Carlisle Hospitals NHS trust reached the stage of signing a contract with the public sector two years ago, but it had to be stopped when the Government required the project to get private finance. Again, although the plan was first mooted in 1989, no contract has yet been signed and the people of Carlisle are still waiting for their new hospital.
  It is the same story in Amersham. The plan to develop Amersham and Wycombe hospitals was approved in October 1994. Then the Tories changed the rules and said that any new hospital required private finance. No contract has been signed and no building has been started. The people of Amersham are still waiting for their new hospital.
  It is the same in Swindon. The Secretary of State gave approval for a replacement for the Princess Margaret hospital in December 1993. He gave it what would now be described as the go-ahead, but in October 1994 the project was required to get private finance. No contract has been signed and the people of Swindon are still waiting for their hospital.
  In north Durham, the Department of Health agreed plans with North Durham Acute NHS trust for a new district general hospital in January 1994. Then the Department said, "Sorry, but none of that is going forward. You must obtain private finance." No contract has been signed and the people of Durham are still waiting for their hospital.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I have a letter from North Durham Acute hospital trust saying that it will now consider two private sector bids for financing. That letter promises that the first phase of a new hospital will

  825
  be built by 1999. My hon. Friend's remarks are deeply worrying. I will be meeting the trust's chief executive, Colin Douglas, on Friday. Does my hon. Friend advise me to tell Mr. Douglas that he ought to look elsewhere for finance and not depend on the private sector because the Government will not give their permission?
  Ms Harman: The problem is that if the trust looks to the public sector, it will find that Government finance for hospital building has been slashed. If the trust looks to the private sector, it will discover a whole load of bankers saying, "Health service PFI does not add up under this Government." My hon. Friend illustrates the situation well. Durham is the location of supposedly one of the programme's flagship hospitals, yet the terms of the contract have not even been agreed with the parties who are to design, finance and build that hospital—let alone the matter of getting the money from the banks.
  Plans for rebuilding Bishop Auckland hospital have been in the pipeline since 1988. In 1993, local Members of Parliament received assurances from the now chair of the Tory party, then Minister of State in the Department of Health, that a new hospital would be built. In 1994, the Chancellor announced that the hospital would have to secure private finance. Again, no contract has been signed and the people of Bishop Auckland are still waiting for their hospital. The Tories' new hospital building programme is a cruel hoax—nothing more than the launching and relaunching of six flagship hospital projects, none of them built. The flow of announcements increases, but the building of new hospitals fails to materialise. The hopes of local people are raised, then dashed.
  Where does that leave the Secretary of State? In the PFI process, the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself incompetent. He makes promises, trumpets them on the front pages of newspapers, and then discovers that he cannot deliver because the bankers will not sign the cheques. The whole thing is a shambles. The Secretary of State was so keen to air dogma that he overlooked the detail, which has nothing to do with potato traders. The private sector will not sign contracts involving tens of millions of pounds under current law, and it is easy to understand why. The private sector must have a contract with the trust, which is the private sector partner. Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the Secretary of State can abolish a trust and does not have to pick up its liabilities. Any banker would be unwise to enter into a contract valued at hundreds of millions of pounds with a public sector partner that can be abolished by the Secretary of State—so the bankers will not sign. The Secretary of State did not notice that fact before announcing the PFI and cutting public sector funds, but the bankers drew it to his attention.
  Because the bankers will not sign, the Secretary of State has rushed this new Bill into the House, telling us that it is about potatoes. Although the Secretary of State taking over all the debts will sort out the problems for the private sector, the Bill will create impossible problems for the public sector. The trusts retain the independent status that they were given under the 1990 Act. The Secretary of State has no powers of control over them and underwrites all their liabilities in the Bill. He is making a blanket agreement to stand behind liabilities over which he has no
  826
  statutory control. The Secretary of State is abolishing any control over or accountability for major areas of NHS capital funding. He is offering the banks a blank cheque from the taxpayer, and he tells the House that that is a mere technicality. Why should the public purse pay for NHS trust liabilities if the public have not played a part in agreeing to those liabilities? The Bill will make it impossible for the Government to oversee the £5 billion of borrowing allowed in schedule 3, which will end up as public expenditure.
  Last week, the Treasury Select Committee took evidence from the Secretary of State for Health and asked him about PFI. Fortunately I was present to hear the right hon. Gentleman's replies. I pay tribute to the skilful questioning of my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). They asked the Secretary of State about the implications of the Bill. Let us consider the right hon. Gentleman's replies.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Surely the hon. Lady will give way now?
  Ms Harman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I reach the point in my speech about which he is asking, but I have not reached it yet.
  The Select Committee asked why the Bill is needed now. The Secretary of State replied that the Bill remedies a problem that has existed since 1948. In fact, the problem has arisen only since the 1990 Act, which established trusts as independent. Before, they were an integral part of the NHS and their actions were controlled by and accountable to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has not just stumbled across a problem that has been invisible for almost 50 years, but he created the situation. He was a Minister in the Department when trusts were made freestanding in 1990.
  The Select Committee asked what controls exist over trust borrowing. As that question was put, the Secretary of State rudely interrupted and said that trusts do not have the power to borrow—he denied that trusts have the power to borrow. He had not read the 1990 Act. Even though the right hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered that legislation, was a Minister in the Department of Health and is now presenting a Bill to guarantee trust liabilities, he had not asked himself whether trusts can borrow and whether he has any control over them. The Secretary of State asserted that trusts do not have the power to borrow, not knowing that they have to borrow. That is a spectacular admission of ignorance, particularly as the Bill requires the right hon. Gentleman and any future Secretary of State for Health to stand behind liabilities accrued by borrowing trusts.
  In case the Secretary of State still has not grasped the point, I refer him to schedule 3 to the 1990 Act, under which NHS trusts can borrow—forget about section 10, which does not override schedule 3. The only restrictions are that trusts should not mortgage their assets, borrow foreign currency or together borrow more than £5 billion. Trusts can borrow without the Secretary of State' approval. They do not have to tell him that they are borrowing—they do not even have to notify him. It is all the more extraordinary that the Secretary of State had

  827
  forgotten—perhaps he never knew—that trusts have borrowing powers, given that my hon. Friends and I have asked parliamentary questions about that aspect.
  Last December, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) asked the Secretary of State how many national health service trusts had borrowed money from commercial sources. The answer was
  "Information on national health service trusts' borrowing from commercial sources during the year is not available".—[Official Report, 4 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 35.]
  The trusts have the power to borrow, but they do not have to tell the Secretary of State.
  We all know that the trusts have not borrowed much in the past six years. They have not been able to borrow because they have not had security for the loans and they cannot mortgage their assets. But the Bill would give them blanket security for all loans. Under the 1990 Act, they will be able to borrow up to £5 billion. The Secretary of State wants to rush the Bill through the House and press on with the PFI, not only to save himself the embarrassment of all the broken promises of new hospitals that have not materialised, but because, under the Tories, the PFI in the NHS is a Government ramp for privatisation.
  Under the Tories, the PFI is not a public-private partnership, but the private sector cherry-picking deals. Under the Tories, the PFI is not private finance working in the public interest, but private commercial interests driving into the heart of the NHS. Market testing is already threatening to privatise clinical support services. The PFI is set to accelerate that yet faster and will let the private sector take over not only the design, building, financing and operation of hospitals, but the running of clinical services.
  The Secretary of State says that he will not let clinical services be put out to the private sector—with a qualification—without the consent of local clinicians. That reassurance means nothing because the Secretary of State will not define what he means by clinical services and nor will he identify any mechanisms for establishing the consent or otherwise of local clinicians. Presumably, he means that if anyone applies for a job when it is advertised by the private sector, that will signify the support of local clinicians. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State does not want to be specific, because he knows that the medical profession and all those who work in the health service are wholly opposed to privatisation, especially the privatisation of clinical services.
  The PFI is already set to create the first privatised NHS hospital, in Stonehaven in Scotland. The design, building and management of a new hospital, including the delivery of clinical services, will be put out to tender to private sector bidders. When the private sector is designing, building, financing, operating and running the hospital, and employing the doctors and nurses, that is privatisation and that is what the Government are all about.
  The Secretary of State has asked about our position. Our position is perfectly clear, but the Secretary of State must try to distinguish between our criticisms of what he is doing and our plans for what we would do. We have made it clear that when private finance can work in partnership with public finance in the public interest to secure investment, we welcome it. We have led the way—across the whole range of services, and especially
  828
  transport—in realising that private finance can work in the public interest, but we have always been clear that our health service must be run by the NHS and that private finance must be in partnership with public finance, not a substitute for it. The public sector, not the private sector, must set priorities in the public interest.
  We believe that the Tories are using the PFI in health as a back door to privatisation. This debate raises serious questions about whether people will get their much-needed hospitals.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On several occasions, the hon. Lady has said that she would give way to me in a moment. Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, tell us what a parliamentary moment is, as I fear she has not the guts to give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Whether an hon. Member gives way is not a matter for the Chair.
  Ms Harman: I have just remembered that every time I have given way to the hon. Gentleman previously, he has asked me questions that had nothing to do with the issue that we were debating. I reminded myself not to waste my time, or that of the House, by answering his questions.
  The Bill also raises serious questions about public services and public accountability, because the Tories are not hostile to public spending. They are hostile to public services. When it comes to the chance to privatise and subsidise the private sector, money is no object. The Tories are not prudent with the public purse, they are reckless with it. That is what the Bill is about. For the sake of our public services and the accountability of the public purse, I call on the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading and to support our amendment.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: We have been treated to a speech of quite stunning disingenuousness by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). We have heard a series of criticisms of the private finance initiative, which is now beginning to deliver benefits to my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, but we have heard not one scrap of detail about how the Opposition propose to alter the rules of the PFI to bring about the remedies that they claim are now needed. We have seen a rather feeble attempt to gloss over the differences between the hon. Lady, with her avowed hostility to the whole concept of the private finance initiative, and her deputy, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who—rather than decry the PFI—wishes to claim authorship of it for himself and for his party.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Surely the differences are not just between hon. Members on the Front Bench but between the hon. Member for Peckham and the local Labour parties in Dartford and Gravesham, which fully support the private finance initiative in the construction of a new hospital on the Darenth Park site. The hon. Lady must know that because she has made inquiries, but she has not raised that point today. That tells me that she knows that there are no votes in the line that she is taking in the constituency of Dartford.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point well.
  We also heard a series of criticisms from the hon. Member for Peckham of the reduction in planned tax finance capital expenditure on the NHS in the plans published in the Budget for the financial year 1996–97. We did not, of course, hear that, even at that reduced level, capital spending on the NHS in the next financial year would still be some 50 per cent. higher than the level that the Conservative party inherited from the Labour party when we took office in 1979.
  I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady's speech and I noticed that, once again, while she criticised the Government for alleged parsimony in the capital funding of public services, she was careful to make no commitment on the part of herself, her Front-Bench team or her party to increase by one penny, let alone by the billions of pounds which she claims are needed, the amount that a putative Labour Government would be prepared to spend on the NHS. The Opposition are prepared to talk in a way that encourages expectations, but again and again they refuse to spell out the cost and how it would be met.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is that not exactly what the disabled persons thought when they went to Labour party headquarters? The Labour party does a lot of talking, but it does not give much commitment.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend puts her points in as forceful and telling a manner as usual.
  Nor would one guess from listening to the hon. Member for Peckham that capital projects under the traditional Treasury route have often been subject to prolonged delay and change stretching over many years. That applies to hospitals, roads and railway projects. It is inherent in capital spending, which is dependent on Treasury finance, that it becomes subject to the exigencies of overall Government priorities for public spending. The fate of individual projects can depend on the horse trading that takes place each year between spending Departments and the Treasury on which area of the Government's overall programme should get priority for that financial year.
  I want to talk briefly about the project that I know best—the one approved for the South Buckinghamshire NHS trust Amersham and High Wycombe hospitals. Although they are located just outside my constituency, they serve a great many of my constituents as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
  As the hon. Member for Peckham pointed out, the South Buckinghamshire NHS trust was putting together proposals for a major capital building programme before the latest private finance initiative was launched. The project, approved in the Budget statement last year, will deliver new hospital facilities much more quickly than local people had dreamt was possible, had they had to take their turn in the queue at the Treasury door, via the traditional funding route. Moreover, the design of the new buildings, and their location, not to mention the way the various facilities will be distributed between the two sites at Amersham and Wycombe, will deliver higher-quality clinical services than would have been achieved under the plans originally drafted by local management using the
  830
  traditional Treasury funding route. It is clear to me from my recent talks with local trust managers and clinicians that they unanimously welcome the PFI, as hastening the prospect of top-quality hospital facilities for local people.
  We have heard Labour party criticism of the alleged laxity of financial controls in the NHS—the alleged risk of money matters going wrong. Having looked at the projects planned in Buckinghamshire, I find it difficult to understand how anyone could believe that. I have seen the proposals for new buildings crawled over, first by the trusts and their advisers, then by the regional health authority, then by the NHS executive, then by the Department of Health and Treasury officials—all to make sure that the right safeguards are in place and that the outcome will be good NHS provision to suit the needs of local people, at a price that will deliver value for money to the taxpayer.
  As the PFI progresses, there are still some difficulties to be resolved. It is a new procedure, and I am sure that Ministers will want to learn from experience of the first projects so as to be able to improve procedures as the initiative takes hold and gathers pace.
  I should like to direct the Under-Secretary's attention to two points in particular. First, I hope that Ministers will always be alert to the need to avoid detailed discussions getting bogged down in the sort of Treasury-Whitehall theology that has delayed projects in the past. As an example, I offer the distinction between a finance lease and an operating lease. A finance lease amounts to providing borrowing to pay for an asset, and that would count within the public sector borrowing requirement. An operating lease is defined as a payment for a service which may include the acquisition of a building and it does not count in the PSBR. I hope that we can avoid lengthy arguments between groups of accountants in various public bodies; such disputes can slow down the attainment of an objective on which everyone is fundamentally agreed.
  Secondly, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look closely at hospital trusts that may want to apply through the PFI for funding for construction—and perhaps maintenance—of buildings, but not necessarily for the management of facilities also. It will be precisely the hospital trusts that have made the greatest progress towards contracting out many of their ancillary services which may find it more difficult to let a single contract to a PFI partner for the management of those services in future.
  I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends will try to learn from experience. I am also sure that this initiative bodes well for my constituents and for those of many other hon. Members. I wish the policy and the Bill well.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: When I heard the Secretary of State speaking, I was reminded of the questions that Tony Hancock asked himself shortly before he committed suicide: "What does it all mean? Why I am here? Where are we going?" He answered the questions as follows: "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know." The Secretary of State spoke for 50 minutes, telling us that this Bill changed nothing. I should hate to listen to him moving the Second Reading of a Bill that did change something.

  831
  Let us imagine the scene. It is Tuesday 27 February, late evening. The shadow Secretary of State for Health is at home after a hard day. She is lost in reverie; suddenly her whole world looks like crashing in—the telephone rings. There is a man on the other end of the line. His voice is cracking and he seems close to tears. It is the Secretary of State for Health. He says, "Harriet, I'm in trouble—you've got to help me. You're my friend, aren't you?"
  The Secretary of State then pulls himself together and explains that he is being blackmailed by a bunch of bankers—three times tonight he used the term, a bunch of "shysters". They are, it seems, blackmailing him into passing the Bill as part of a wider negotiating package. They are telling him, "We are business men, not risk takers." There is panic in the right hon. Gentleman's voice. He says that the Bill is to be published tomorrow, and that Second Reading must be on 5 March—last Tuesday. The Bill must be through the House by Whitsun.
  The shadow Secretary of State for Health stands firm, however, and is not seduced by the blandishments of a Secretary of State who is clearly trying to con her over the telephone in the middle of the night. Some people may think this story apocryphal; it tells the House what the Bill is all about.
  Then, on 4 March, the Secretary of State for Health comes before the Treasury Select Committee to be questioned about the Bill and the private finance initiative. He is usually elegant and composed, but last week he look frazzled—he had obviously had a sleepless weekend. He told us that the bankers still would not sign the PFIs, and that they wanted the Bill, together with other negotiated settlements that present hurdles which he still cannot get around.
  The questioning has scarcely begun when this suave, assured, sophisticated Secretary of State suddenly loses control. I know, because I was there asking him the questions. I have the transcript with me. My question, directly related to the Bill, was about the power of trusts to borrow and about how liabilities that the Secretary of State has to meet can be built up. I asked:
  "Can you tell me, the trusts have the power to borrow, do they not?"
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "No, that is incorrect."
  At that point, it was as though an electric charge had gone through the Select Committee. Everyone sat bolt upright in utter amazement. I was gobsmacked, to borrow a phrase usually used by the Governor of Hong Kong. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had misheard the question. So, with incredulity tinged with sarcasm, I repeated it:
  "The trusts do not have the power to borrow?"
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "The trusts do not have the power to borrow."
  I am absolutely amazed by that double assertion on the part of the Secretary of State. I have in front of me a copy of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Under the heading "Borrowing", paragraph 1 of schedule 3, on the financial provisions relating to NHS trusts, states:
  "(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph and to any limit imposed under the following provisions of this Schedule, for the purpose of its functions an NHS trust may borrow (both temporarily, by way of overdraft, and longer term) from the Secretary of State or any other person."
  832
  The Secretary of State said twice in succession that NHS trusts had no powers to borrow. We have a Secretary of State who does not know what is in his own legislation, who does not understand how trusts operate, who does not understand how schemes are paid for and how liabilities, which he will guarantee in the Bill, are built up. That is astonishing. It is incredible. By any standards, it is extraordinary.
  I have been a civil servant, a parliamentary private secretary—a bit of a dogsbody—and a Member of the House. I have seen Secretaries of State who are ignorant. I have seen Secretaries of State who are very ignorant, but never before have I seen a Secretary of State whose ignorance measures force 12 on the Richter scale. That is hurricane-level ignorance. The Secretary of State's behaviour seemed a bit like that of an A-level student about to take his English examination who does not know his ABC. It was a bit like a plumber walking into a house to mend a cistern and saying that he had forgotten his tools. These were basic facts that we would expect a Minister to know.
  I wonder what the civil servants who were at that meeting thought about it. When I was in the civil service, we expected our Secretary of State to go to the Dispatch Box and put on a good performance. We expected our Secretary of State to go to a Committee upstairs properly briefed with all the answers. After all, there were hundreds of us providing the Secretary of State with every single bit of information. A triumph for the Secretary of State was a triumph for us, and a failure by the Secretary of State was a failure for us. As the Secretary of State displayed this astonishing ignorance, he debased and demeaned not only his civil servants and his office but the Department for which he worked.
  It is worse than that. I asked how much trusts could borrow, and how great, by way of borrowing, were the liabilities that he was prepared to undertake under the Bill. Because he does not know that a trust can borrow, I imagine that his answer is "None." Paragraph 3 of schedule 3, on limits of indebtedness in relation to trusts, which the Secretary of State thinks cannot borrow anything, reads:
  "(1) The aggregate of all sums borrowed by NHS trusts established to assume responsibility for the ownership and management of, or to provide and manage, hospitals or other establishments or facilities which are situated in England"—
  only England—
  "shall not exceed £5,000 million or such other sum not exceeding £10,000 million as may be specified by order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury."
  This Secretary of State, apparently, is prepared to allow trusts to borrow £10 billion under his own directions without knowing what it is about. That is why there are people like me—people who have fiduciary and fiscal probity—on the Treasury Select Committee. I have seen whole Governments collapse because they borrowed £10 billion more than they should have. Yet this whiz kid, who used to work for the Treasury, goes to the Department of Health and is prepared to see trusts borrow £10 billion and know absolutely nothing about it. What on earth is happening to our country? Is it any wonder that we are a backward, fractious island off the coast of north-west Europe, with a culture that is in irreversible decline?

  833
  Why is the Secretary of State so ignorant? My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham asked that question. One answer to that is that ignorance is quite often born of arrogance and laziness. That reminds me a ditty by Cole Porter:

  "It's not 'cause I shouldn't

  It's not 'cause I wouldn't

  And you know it's not 'cause I couldn't

  It's simply because I'm the laziest man in town."

  To be fair, the Secretary of State may not be the laziest man in town, but everybody in the House now knows that he is the laziest Secretary of State in Whitehall. He has made indolence an art form. If Marlowe was right when he said,
  "there is no sin but ignorance",
  one of the biggest sinners in the world would be the Secretary of State for Health.
  The point that I want to make is that the Secretary of State continued to say that nothing could ever go wrong, that no trust would ever get to a situation where it might have many liabilities to meet, and in any case he would honour them however and wheresoever they had been caused. I shall give one example of the problems that we might face. It relates to the PFI of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust. The PFI is six, seven, eight, nine or 10 times bigger than anything that has been mentioned tonight; it is for £260 million to close St. Bartholomew's hospital and build a new 750-bed hospital in Whitechapel.
  It is generally agreed that the private finance initiative is flawed, and therefore that there could be liabilities after this huge sum of money has been invested. How do I know that it is flawed? First, one of the senior figures at the East London and City health authority—the purchaser—told one of the members of the Treasury Select Committee, and I put this to one of our witnesses at the hearing, that the project was not financially viable. That is the kind of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham is saying. If someone puts in £260 million and the project is not financially available and the trust goes bust, who will pick up the tab? The Bill says that it will not be the contractors and the people who will build and manage the hospital.
  We do not need simply to take the evidence of a senior figure who works for the purchaser. The financial viability was question by the York Economics Consortium, which consists of some of the most prestigious health experts in the country. It said, when expressing doubts about the capital and revenue estimates of the PFI, which will probably have to be bailed out by the Bill:
  "The preferred option generates an additional saving of £9m at the cost of almost £100m in additional capital spending. For this additional capital cost to be justified, the revenue benefits of the incremental spend must be reasonably secure.
  We believe that there is sufficient uncertainty around the estimates of net revenue savings … that the magnitude of the assumed difference in costs between the options is extremely sensitive. Since this difference is, in any case, relatively small in relation to the total revenue expenditure of the Trust … further evidence is needed before the additional capital expenditure of £100m required to move from a do minimum to a single site solution can be justified on a purely financial basis."
  The purchaser is saying, "Here's a PFI that can build up liabilities which the Government may have to pick up from the private sector." The York Economics
  834
  Consortium is saying exactly the same thing. There is also a third body, the King's Fund, which commissioned the CASPE Consulting report, which said:
  "Business people are used to taking risks, but of a calculated sort. The Trust is expecting to start negotiations with Private Finance Consortia soon."
  I break off there. One hundred people from the private finance world seeing £260 million coming into their hands have said that they are interested. Of course they are interested. They will be particularly interested if the Bill is passed and their liabilities are picked up if and when things go wrong.
  The report continued:
  "Even on the figures in the OBC"—
  the outline business case—
  "it would appear wise for any of the possible consortia to check whether the CASPE Consulting St. Bartholomew's Foundation option incorporating new partnerships would not produce better returns and do so much more quickly … even the preliminary work undertaken to date suggests that a complete reconsideration and development of a new Foundation option, incorporating the service proposals of both NHS and non NHS partners, would be wise and be likely to produce a better solution for the NHS."
  Those three prestigious groups, the purchaser, the York Economics Consortium and the King's Fund, which produced the original documentation on which the private finance initiative was based, are all now saying that this is a major scheme—by the standards of everything that the Secretary of State has told us, a mega-scheme—which could go horribly wrong. If it goes horribly wrong, the private finance consortia will want the Bill. They are another group of bankers who will not sign unless they get the Bill.
  The Government, in effect, are promising the private finance consortia two things. First, they are promising them the Bill and, secondly, they are saying behind our backs—I put it to the Secretary of State and he said that he knew about it, and I also put it to Gerry Green, the chief executive of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust—"We can get around this because, if we get the Bill and we have got them to sign the private finance initiative, we can increase the size of the hospital from 750 to 1,020 beds."
  That requires a new outline business case. The public have been told nothing about that. If I had not raised it at a meeting of the Treasury Select Committee, no one would know it even now. It would require a new outline business case and new consultation. Therefore, this is a process to avoid the new outline business case and the new consultation. It is all predicated on first getting the Bill through and then getting the private finance consortia to sign.
  The Secretary of State has said that he does not want any of the private finance initiatives to take place against—I am not sure that I have his exact words—a difficult political decision. Who does he think he is kidding? Those private finance consortia really should now think hard about exactly what they are signing and exactly what response they expect from a future Labour Government who could be in power before any of these schemes have been signed. The response that they will get is the responsible attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. Therefore, they have a lot of worrying to do about the Bill, and so has the House.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am delighted to support the Bill. It is a technical but none the less important measure. It is essential that contractors and suppliers to NHS trusts are secure in their credit arrangements for the work that they do for the national health service. It is absolutely important for the suppliers and for the private finance initiative.
  The PFI represents building for the future of our NHS, and it is particularly relevant to the hospitals in north-west Kent. At present, hospital provision in north-west Kent is spread across three sites—the Joyce Green hospital, north of Dartford, an old fever hospital; the West Hill hospital in Dartford, an old poor law house; and the Gravesend and North Kent hospital in my constituency, a subscription hospital from the previous century.
  Our in-patient hospital services are spread across those three sites and they are administered by the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust. They are far from ideal. In fact, those hospitals have possibly the worst fabric of any in the former south-east Thames region. Nevertheless, they work for us very well because of the dedication of our doctors and nurses and everyone else who works there. But we desperately need our new district general hospital.
  For years now, as in other cases mentioned in the debate, we have seen plans come and go and be put off. The reason for that is simple. If one goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and asks for a cheque for £100 million, either one gets a dusty answer and it is back to the drawing board, or one is asked, "Couldn't it be done in phases on one of the existing three sites?" A first phase would be allowed immediately; then, after some scratching of heads and playing with the capital programme, there might be a second phase a few years down the road; later still, there might be a third phase.
  The new district general hospital for north-west Kent has been designed, redesigned and redesigned again. Round and round we have gone. That is not to say that the Government have not been building new hospitals. I wanted to make this point when I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), but her courage failed her and she did not feel able to give way as she had promised to do on a number of occasions. The Government have had a massive hospital capital programme. Since they came to office in 1979, there have been 800 major new hospital projects, each costing more than £1 million. I could have pointed out to the hon. Lady that that rate of investment is more than four times greater than that under the previous Labour Government. Nevertheless, our hospital in north-west Kent has not yet been built and nor have the others to which she referred. That is the crux of the issue.
  We could wait in a long queue for the capital programme to come forward from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, it is a better programme than Labour ever had, but it is not moving fast enough for us in north-west Kent or in those other places that have been mentioned. That is why the PH is so valuable and why I and my constituents resent the ridiculous political posturing of the hon. Member for Peckham. It is not good enough. We want our hospital. The hon. Lady opposes the PFI yet makes no commitment on behalf of the Labour Government that she hopes might be elected. That leaves my constituents in the limbo with which they are all too familiar, but with the difference that they would be without hope.
  836
  The PFI has given my constituents hope. They have hope because the Government, through the NHS trust, have invited bids under the PFI to build that new general hospital in north-west Kent. Four major consortia have come forward keen to succeed in their bid to build and finance the hospital and, in the long term, to run its housekeeping—the servicing, the cleaning, the provision of groundsmen, the parking arrangements, the catering and a number of ancillary services. Under the PFI, they would provide the hospital, by means of a long lease for which they would be paid a substantial fee, and all the services. When I bear in mind the fact that the budget of our NHS trust is £56 million a year, there is obviously a certain amount of scope to do precisely that.
  That is not privatisation. It is private provision under a contract, but the important point which is of concern to my constituents is that the NHS will put in the doctors, consultants, nurses, medical support, administration and booking arrangements so that we obtain the best possible health care from the facilities provided.
  Thanks to the PFI, four consortia are bidding to build the brand new general hospital in north-west Kent. There are big names among them. Each consortium includes a major construction company—obviously so, as they are keen to secure the contract to build a major project—a catering and hotel servicing company, a financial company and a project administration company. They are likely to create an on-going, functioning hospital, with all the efficiency that the private sector can provide when its money is on the line.
  As I told the House, we were always told to have a phase here and a phase there built on current locations, which would mean Joyce Green hospital near Dartford, a site immensely unpopular in Gravesend and not much more popular in Dartford. The old NHS financing system—still supported by the Labour party—would have led to a new hospital at Joyce Green. When we asked the four private sector bidders, through the bidding process, where they would build the new hospital for north-west Kent—surprise, surprise—the message from came back loud and clear: Joyce Green is unsuitable for a new hospital. That is most fascinating for my constituents.
  The bidders would prefer the Darenth Park site between Dartford and Gravesend because that is the site preferred by my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). That is what happens when the private sector is used, rather than the old-fashioned, bureaucratic system that we had in the past and in which Labour has a great belief.
  Where are we now? The four bids are being considered carefully and in detail. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Peckham to make great fun about assessment, but my constituents want arrangements for the hospital to be thorough so that it will deliver our hospital services over many decades. We are not playing games when it comes to the health care of people in north-west Kent. I hope that that assessment is thorough and quick. All the signs are that that is precisely what is happening. We shall soon have a shortlist of two. There will then he public consultation of my constituents, who will be the patients in those hospitals. The contractual negotiations will then take place with a view to contracts being signed this autumn. Under the new PH system, my constituents have the best chance of progress that they have had under any Government.

  837
  When the contracts are completed and the project has been constructed and is operating, Joyce Green and West Hill hospitals in Dartford will pass into history and the Gravesend and North Kent hospital facility will become free and available. For many years, my constituents have had a dream: to have their own community hospital providing basic health care in Gravesend. Gravesend and North Kent hospital will have the opportunity to pass to the Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust. It will serve a conurbation of 100,000 souls in Gravesham and Southfleet, and in Longfield and New Barn in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. It will provide valuable services in our town: minor injuries, out-patients, acute active rehabilitation, elderly care, general practitioner beds, primary health, physiotherapy, dental and diagnostic services, all in a community hospital that my constituents dearly wish to have. Again, that will be financed through a private finance initiative currently costed to the tune of £8.5 million.
  If the NHS were structured and financed under the old Labour system, to which the hon. Member for Peckham seems to wish to return, my constituents would have remained in a queue for many years. It is now clear that the Conservative Government, with their new and imaginative PFI system, are taking our hospital project forward. We are already seeing the benefits of the NHS reforms. Fundholding general practices in my constituency have been successful beyond our wildest dreams.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am always happy to have passing references to local matters, but he seems to be moving a long way from the subject of the Bill. The Bill concerns winding things up rather than starting them off, which appears to be the main subject of his speech.
  Mr. Arnold: The concern is that, if either of the two trusts to which I have referred—which will develop our general hospital or our community hospital—faced the risk of being wound up and of leaving creditors with no one to pursue, the contracts for the PFI and for supply of hospitals could be in doubt. That is why the Bill is so relevant. I am outlining my constituents' hopes, which could not be fulfilled under the old structure of financing the NHS, to which the Labour party remains wedded. The fulfilment of those hopes must be guaranteed by the passage of the Bill, which would ensure that proper financial security exists for PR contractors and for suppliers. That is vital.
  That is the reason why I was distressed to hear the Opposition spokeswoman time and again attacking the PFI. Perhaps somewhat naively, my constituents and I took to heart the Leader of the Opposition's comment:
  "The PFI is right in principle."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1077.]
  I thought that this matter might have gone out of the party political arena, but the performance of the Labour spokeswoman for health threw all those hopes out of the window by seeming to bring sterile party political battles into it. We heard quoted her comment to the Birmingham Health conference on 13 January this year:
  "I don't call it a Private Finance Initiative, I call it a privatisation initiative."
  838
  What is that supposed to mean? It appears to be hostile to the PFI, which is born out by the fact that the Labour party intends to vote against the Bill tonight.
  We want the PFI. My constituents will understand and share my view that, apparently, we need a Conservative Government to take the PFI forward this and the other side of the next general election. Our hospital dreams depend on it. The PFI and all the legislation needed to make it a reality is vital to my constituents because, in respect of hospitals for north-west Kent, the PFI is turning dreams into reality.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate is prompted and motivated, and the Bill has been introduced, for two obvious reasons. There is the theoretical, academic reason, explained probably six times by the Secretary of State for Health in his speech. It is that the Secretary of State of the day might not pick up the tab if a trust were to be dissolved and left with debts. The real reason, however, is that the problem came to light once the Government started going at much greater speed than ever before down the private finance initiative road. That was the explanation. The Secretary of State was honest about it. The current law allows discretion for the Secretary of State to say, "No, sorry—I am not picking up the tab."
  Clearly, dealing with the "not picking up the tab" point is important. In the part of the world from which I come, the South Thames training and enterprise council went to the wall a year and a quarter ago. The Secretary of State for Employment, as he then was—he is now Secretary of State for Defence—suddenly wound it up, and a number of people who had traded with it in the belief that it was an agent of Government were left whistling for their money: training providers, local colleges and local firms. Many never received their money.
  The Government did the dirty. They claimed their entitlement, saying, "We are the preferred creditors, so we shall take our money first even if others must suffer." I know all about agents, or agencies, of Government that claim to be supported by the Treasury or other Departments, but are eventually shown to be other than what they claim. With members of the other main parties, I went to see the Secretary of State, and he told us that the same applied to local councils. If a council went to the wall, the Government could say, "Sorry, but we will not bail you out." A council could be declared bankrupt, but the Government would not be obliged to support it.
  I believe that the Government should be responsible for Government agencies. Theoretically, therefore, I am happy for the law to be amended. But this is not just a theoretical issue—it is a practical issue. We are having this debate because the Government have clearly said that they cannot sign the PFI contracts—as emerged in the Select Committee on 4 March, none has yet been signed—unless assurances can be given that people will never be left whistling for their money. The reason is clear: the private sector partners will not play ball. I understand why they do not want to find themselves in bigger difficulties than they would otherwise.
  That raises a general question that I have raised in the House before. When and where did Parliament decide that the national health service should become dependent on the private finance initiative in regard to capital projects?

  839
  Unless I missed it, or it was written in invisible ink, nothing to that effect was included in the manifesto on which the Conservatives fought the last general election and, under our funny electoral system, won the election despite the fact that most people voted against them.
  Since then, there has never been a formal statement of Government policy telling us that, in future, the capital building programme of the NHS will be funded by the private sector. The Government have allowed the PFI to creep in. They have said that they intend to rely on it in more and more ways, but they have not been so straightforward with the House. It is clear—this, too, emerged in the Treasury Select Committee—that, according to the original proposal put to Parliament by different Departments, the PFI was a way of raising extra money: it was not intended to serve as an excuse for substituting private for public money.
  As was clear from the public expenditure statements made to the House at the end of November, there will be a 12.7 per cent. reduction in next year's publicly funded NHS capital programme. The Secretary of State confirmed that fact to the Select Committee. Although he did not say so explicitly, he was honest enough to accept that in reality the PFI is unlocking private money to make up for the fact that the Government are not committing public money to the hospital building programme.
  My colleagues and I have no theological objection to the use of the private sector to supply public services. That is done every day of the week by, for instance, education authorities buying books for schools. We do, however, object to discovering suddenly that the proposition on which we had relied—that the hospital building programme, and other NHS capital projects, would be publicly funded—has been replaced by a proposal to cut public funding and replace it with private finance. I shall not vote for that unless we have tested to our satisfaction the proposition that we are to get better value for money—a proposition which, as recently as a year ago, was not supported by the Treasury. A year ago, the Treasury was still advising the Department of Health that the PFI would probably prove more rather than less expensive.
  Let us suppose that a private sector consortium was commissioned to build a hospital. Let us also suppose that it was assumed that the private sector would use the hospital for 50 years, and that a 50-year rental agreement was drawn up. According to previous Treasury advice, even if the hospital was transferred to the public sector at the end of those 50 years for no more than the rental payment, the payments spread over that period would amount to more than would be involved in borrowing to spend now. We all know why that is: it is cheaper for the Government to borrow money than for anyone else to do so, because they are the most secure of all borrowers. It had always been assumed that they were the best borrower, because they obtained the best rates. If the Government were going to borrow to fund an NHS capital building programme, that was the cheapest way of providing the service.
  When I have seen the evidence that proves what the Secretary of State now asserts, which is contrary to Treasury advice given less than a year ago—that it is cheaper for the private sector to build hospitals in Amersham, Scotland, the east end of London, on the south bank of the Thames and in Carlisle, for instance—I shall find it difficult to argue that that is not in the interests of
  840
  the taxpayer and the consumer. But it has not been proved, and yet again we are putting the cart before the horse. We are cutting NHS capital expenditure. There is no argument about that: the Secretary of State has admitted that there is to be a 12.7 per cent. cut next year, and according to the Chancellor's Red Book over the next few years we shall see the largest relative reduction in expenditure on the health service capital programme since 1948.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): No.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, we shall. Since 1948, public expenditure on the health service has grown regularly, year on year. It has gone up and down, but the overall graph has risen. Over the next few years, as projected by the Chancellor, we shall see the greatest slowdown ever in the commitment of public capital expenditure to the NHS, and in its expansion. I can show the Minister the figures, which are in the public domain.
  I shall not vote for such action, because I believe that the case must be proved before we sign up to it—and I will not sign up to action for which the motivation is driven not by accountancy or a desire for value for money, but by the approach of a general election which must be preceded by the delivery of tax cuts. The Chancellor delivered tax cuts last November; we opposed them, Labour abstained and the Government voted for them. He wants to deliver tax cuts next November; I assume that we shall again vote against them, Labour will again abstain and the Government will again vote for them. The only way in which the Chancellor can do that is by keeping down public expenditure, which means that he must transfer not just the risk but the cost to the private sector. A year ago, the Treasury said that that was the more expensive option, and I do not believe that those advisers have suddenly changed their minds.
  I would be very happy with a procedure whereby the Treasury and Health Select Committees and the House took evidence from everyone concerned and subsequently decided whether the PFI was cheaper for hospital building, the provision of clinical services or a mixture of the two. That is what good legislation and policy should mean. But I am certainly not happy to sign up to something that says, "Last year it was bad news; this year it is good news." We have seen no evidence to show that anything has changed. I am less happy because, while the national health service is supposed to be run democratically, trusts meet and take decisions in secret and are accountable to nobody in the public whom they serve. They are accountable only to civil servants and the Secretary of State for Health.
  The decision-making process to select the consortium to which a hospital project will go is not out in the open. Nor will a privately financed project be demonstrably cheaper—over 50 years, it may be more expensive. No one has agreed to that process apart from people who meet in secret behind closed doors. The public have not agreed to it. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that financial deals with the private sector would not be approved unless those involved on the clinical side agreed. Who is to say to how many people, and to whom, the Government will talk? I have had plenty of experience of the Secretary of State talking to people in the health service and saying that they have agreed when they have not or when some have agreed and others have disagreed. That is why there is a risk.

  841
  I have a practical suggestion about how we should proceed. I do not want a system that tells me after the event whether a project is good value for money but one that tells me that before the event. I do not want a civil servant, the accounting officer, to report privately to the chief accounting officer, the chief executive of the NHS, through documents that the public cannot see and say whether a project is good value for money. I would be happy for an independent person such as the Comptroller and Auditor General to do that job. If his office said, "Right, go ahead, it is cheaper, and you can go ahead because it is better value for money," the project should go ahead. However, until and unless publicly accountable independent people, not employed by the Government of the day, give that advice so that the public can see and hear it, we are being asked to sign up to an unacceptable proposition.
  The Minister will know of the example of the proposals before the Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust because it serves many of his constituents. Surprise, surprise—the trust has got a bit of a private finance initiative idea. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made the point well that the PFI is being used an excuse for further delaying things that were about to go ahead. South of the river, we were about to go ahead with an outline business case that had been worked out by the trust. We were told that it was ready to be the final business case, but it never quite saw the light of day.
  It was a bit like snakes and ladders. Just as we were about to move off the square, we were told, "Sorry, you've got to down the snake marked private finance initiative." We have to go back to the beginning to find whether the proposal that was worked up as part of trust's public sector plan could be done more cheaply in the private sector. It may be true, as was said earlier, that there had been no development for six years at Norwich hospital, but the PFI means having to go round an extra loop, which may take a year or two, before getting back to where one started. There is no guarantee that anything will have been achieved because it may prove that it would be more expensive to use the PFI than to use the original public route. The real issue about capital programmes and capital spend in the health service is ensuring that there is an accountable way of getting value for money irrespective of whether projects are in the public or private sectors.
  I was delighted when the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, told me last Monday that the Comptroller and Auditor General will investigate what has been happening south of the river, where a building project for Philip Harris house and associated works that were originally to have cost £56 million are now scheduled to cost £157 million. They were originally due to be finished in 1993; now, if we are lucky, they will be finished in 1997. That is the sort of question that I want answered.
  The Government commissioned a building which, three years ago, they called the flagship building of the national health service. Why we are now told that we shall have to spend another £112 million on a new building on another site to do work for which the building on which we have just spent £150 million is specially built and equipped? Those are the questions that my constituents
  842
  want answered. I am delighted that the Comptroller and Auditor General is to investigate them. I wish that he had been monitoring the system all through and made sure that projects, once money has been committed to them as being the best value for money, are seen through and that Government and officials behind closed doors do not suddenly change their minds about how to use buildings.
  We will win the argument and prove that Philip Harris house should be used for its intended purpose. We will show that it will still be better value for money to use the building on which the money has been spent and not commit another £112 million somewhere else. I hope that the Government also realise that unless they agree, they will be throwing extra public money after that which they are already committed to spend.
  Let us address the real questions, get the evidence out in the open and have an informed debate. We should not deceive ourselves that this is all about sharing risks. It is no more about sharing risks now, or in the future, than it has been in the past. Risks have always been shared. Whenever the health service commissions work from a private builder, there is a shared risk. If the private builder takes three years or goes bust, the project is covered by contracts and insurance. The health service was no worse off in that situation than it would be if a consortium and the health service, on behalf of the taxpayer, proposed to build or expand a hospital, clinic or other facility together.
  I am happy to sign up to something which says that the NHS trusts should not suddenly leave people whistling for their money, but I am not prepared to do so without ever having been asked to approve the proposal that we replace public by private money and start moving the whole NHS capital building programme from the public sector to the private sector. Until and unless we are given some assurances about the way in which the health service is going and whether it is being openly and accountably managed so that we can see that we are getting the best value for money for everyone, we shall reserve our position on the Bill and vote for Labour's reasoned amendment. We shall not vote if there is a Division on Second Reading because we cannot approve a package deal that conceals more than it reveals.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: Labour Members' speeches consisted mainly of a combination of synthetic outrage and scaremongering. I exclude the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) from that charge. His was a more reasoned critique of the private finance initiative, although I do not entirely agree with what he had to say.
  The Bill is largely a technical measure but nevertheless one of some importance. It is necessary to ensure the continuing success of the PFI in the NHS. The PFI already greatly benefits the health service.
  Before the autumn statement in 1992, hon. Members will recall that Treasury orthodoxy was implacably opposed to the use of private capital on public sector projects. Almost any suggestion immediately fell foul of the notorious Ryrie rules, which were almost designed to ensure that the conditions set for privately financed projects were impossible to meet. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, as Financial Secretary, had the imagination to ignore the mandarins and break free of the rigid Treasury constraints.

  843
  It was perhaps unsurprising that, to begin with, attention focused on opportunities to use private capital for transport projects because it is easier to create a stream of income from tolling which would give private investors their return on such projects. For services that are specifically free to the user, such as the NHS, it is more complicated to ensure the return on capital. However, the advantages of private sector involvement in the financing of capital projects are the same as in every other area of public sector provision. They include the opportunity to take advantage of additional skills and expertise, to gain access to new sources of capital and to transfer risk. Private sector involvement allows the NHS to share overheads and benefit from economies of scale.
  There is no reason why publicly funded health care has to be supplied by publicly financed and managed hospitals. When the NHS takes on the design and construction of new facilities, it is exposed to risks that can impose costs and reduce efficiency. Anybody who has been involved in a construction project will know that there are 101 things that can push up the cost or throw out the timetable. The result is that more money has to be diverted away from patient care. The PFI allows those risks to be reduced and to be transferred to a private partner.
  Since 1992, the PFI has taken root with the establishment of the PFI database in the health service and the requirement that all capital projects be tested to determine their potential for private sector input. The database significantly speeds up the process of matching NHS and private sector organisations with mutual interests, as well as providing a much wider range of potential partners from which a trust can choose. It also allows trusts to draw on the experiences of others in the NHS who have dealt with the private sector, to ensure that their knowledge and expertise are shared.
  Already, considerable interest has been revealed and a number of projects are up and running. At its most exciting, the PFI allows the provision for NHS trusts of complete new hospitals, or significant parts of hospitals, funded by the private sector. But opportunities for private sector involvement in health care are by no means limited to the financing of capital-intensive hospital building projects. Indeed, a report commissioned last year by the London Implementation Group recommended that the only way to get privately financed primary health care centres built quickly in inner London would be to allow private health providers to both build and operate them.
  In the first instance, trusts may concentrate on those assets and services that are not core functions, such as car parking, waste incineration, energy management, patient accommodation and hotel services, but other schemes may involve direct patient services that carry a risk of uncertain revenue streams, such as dialysis, day surgery and domiciliary services. The past three years have seen a gathering momentum so that, having started at the back of the field, the NHS is now out in front in making use of the PFI. So far, 45 PFI projects have been approved by the NHS executive, with a total capital value of more than £160 million. However, by the end of next year projects worth more than £1 billion will have come forward for assessment and approval.
  Under this Government, an enormous amount is being spent on the health service—not just in current spending on patient care, but on capital projects as well. My own constituency is served by two general hospitals, each of
  844
  which is seeing substantial investment in the expansion of facilities. My constituents in Maldon are served by Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in the Chamber. He, too, takes a close interest in the progress of that hospital. When he and I visited it recently, we saw that work had just started on a £25 million development. This will include six new theatres, a 20-bed burns unit with its own operating theatre, a 20-bed children's ward and six adult wards for plastic surgery, orthopaedic and rheumatology services, not to mention a new pharmacy, a new hydrotherapy pool and a new medical records library.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) referred to the Governments's hospital building programme as castles in the air. Those projects are no castles in the air—they are in train and will soon be available for patient care. When it is completed in two years' time, clinical space at Broomfield will be increased by more than 50 per cent.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not doubt what the hon. Gentleman says. My brother, who is his constituent, will no doubt be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's work. However, can he say with his hand on his heart that he has been shown evidence to prove that over the whole of the costing and the payback of the project—or any other project—it is unarguably considerably cheaper than any other route that might have been followed?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman's brother is my constituent. I shall regard it as a specific challenge to persuade him to vote for me. I would be happy to have greater analysis. I believe that the private sector is capable of building and running hospitals more cheaply than the public sector. There is already some evidence to support that. However, it is early days with the PH and I should be happy to see more work done to try to establish the precise facts. We are still in the early stages of private sector involvement in the building of hospitals for the NHS. I hope that there will be greater analysis in the coming months. I believe that it will show that the private sector is capable of building hospitals more cheaply and efficiently than the NHS.
  It is not only my Maldon constituents who are benefiting from new capital facilities in the NHS. At Colchester general hospital, which covers the other end of my constituency—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must reiterate a point that I made earlier: hon. Members' remarks must be related to the Bill and not be simply a general survey of the NHS in an hon. Member's constituency.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely take that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, at Colchester general hospital in particular, it is the PFI that allows the project to go ahead and therefore benefit my constituents in future. Without the provisions of the Bill, I believe that there would be a threat to the continued success of the PFI, which then might result in such projects not proceeding.
  At Colchester general hospital, work is far advanced on a new obstetrics, gynaecology and orthopaedics unit. The next part of the £30 million development programme is

  845
  the re-provision of acute care for the elderly and rehabilitation facilities. That is being undertaken under the PFI at a cost of about £9 million. It should be in place next year. In due course, we can also look forward to a brand new cancer unit in Colchester.
  For years, my constituents have lost out because resources have been sucked away from north Essex and into London. As a result, we have suffered from some of the longest waiting lists in the country. At last, that problem is now being addressed and this year the North Essex health authority has been given a £11.5 million increase over and above inflation. However, the real proof of the Government's commitment to the NHS in north Essex is the creation of, in effect, two new hospitals in Colchester and Chelmsford.
  Despite the enormous amounts that are being devoted to health care, demand for new facilities is growing continuously. Improvements in medical technology and increasing demand for health care from an aging population mean that resources will always be under pressure—and when budgets are squeezed, it is usually the capital programme that bears the brunt. The PFI can increasingly relieve the NHS of the burden of capital expenditure. This Bill, by clarifying the legal and constitutional status of NHS trusts, will remove one of the last inhibiting factors which may hold back private investors from taking advantage of the PFI.
  What is extraordinary is the attitude of the Opposition to the Bill. In the past, they have said that they support the use of private finance for public sector projects. Indeed, as we have heard, they have even attempted to claim that they originally suggested it. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is on record as saying that they have supported the PFI and, in many ways, have been advocating it. It therefore comes as something of a surprise to find that they are opposing the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Peckham may not have caught up with the policy of her own party. Like the internal market, the purchaser-provider split, trust hospitals and, apparently, even general practitioner fundholding, she has not realised that it is another area where the Labour party is being forced to muzzle its previous opposition because of the obvious success of and support for those policies. It is certainly possible that she may not have understood the evolution in Labour party thinking, for on the very same day as her leader was expressing his support for the PFI, she was on the "Today" programme saying that the PFI was a new trick to privatise the NHS.
  As is the case in so many other areas, the Labour party is in a state of total confusion: it knows that the public finance initiative is working, but it cannot bring itself to say so. The Labour party's ideology prevents it from admitting that the private sector is ever capable of doing things better than the public sector. We are entitled to know whether the Labour party would abandon the PFI, and stop the construction of the hospitals and the facilities that are being built by the PFI. Would the Labour party spend taxpayers' money to replace the investment which is now being financed by the private sector? What is the price tag on its ideological hostility? We have not received any answers to these questions during the debate.
  846
  The Bill is a sensible measure: it will ensure that the national health service continues to meet its debts, it will reinforce the confidence of private investors to participate in NHS capital projects and it will allow the PFI to continue to help us build an even better health service.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) obviously did not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) when she addressed the House and explained how the Labour party looks upon the public finance initiative programme, in this instance involving the national health service. My hon. Friend made it clear that the Labour party believes in a partnership arrangement between the public sector and the private sector.
  The fact that there is no partnership arrangement with the PFI in the national health service makes us suspicious of what the Government plan. Conservative Members have said that they agree that the financiers should design, plan, build and run the hospitals. If that is not privatisation by the back door, what do Conservative Members require to prove to them that this is a privatisation of the national health service?
  I draw hon. Members' attention to why I requested to speak in the debate. The Bill is of paramount interest to my constituents, in particular, and to the people of the Wakefield district, in general. Pinderfields general hospital, in Wakefield, is in my constituency. The doctors, the nurses and the support staff of the hospital are dedicated to the service that they provide and they deserve more help from the Department of Health.
  I could have included the chief executive in the list of dedicated people at Pinderfields general hospital, but he left his post on Friday last week. I understand that the director of medical services is currently acting as the chief executive, in addition to performing his normal duties. The director was due to retire in July, but he has agreed to continue to work for a further 18 months, if required.
  We are witnessing a further chapter in the Pinderfields scenario—a scenario that has continued for a considerable amount of time. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), when he replies to the debate, can shed some light on what is taking place in Pinderfields general hospital trust.
  I draw hon. Members' attention to some of the conditions under which the staff of Pinderfields must work and under which patients receive treatment. If there were a transfer of residual liabilities, a large area of Pinderfields general hospital would be worth very little. A number of the wards at Pinderfields general hospital were provided in 1940 for the wounded personnel of Her Majesty's forces. Approximately 30 temporary buildings were put into place as a provisional hospital—at that time, they were called the huts. The estimated life of the huts—with care, attention and maintenance—was 25 years. Many of the huts are still providing places for patients: 56 years after they were built and more than 30 years after what was estimated to be their useful life.
  In 1949, I spent three months in H ward of the hospital because of an accident in the mining industry. At that time, the wards were well maintained, clean and well serviced. They fulfilled a useful purpose. Those wards are now residual liabilities. Over the past 20 years many

  847
  promises have been made on the provision of a new hospital on the Pinderfields site to replace the 56-year-old temporary buildings.
  A great deal of money has been spent trying to keep the huts at a standard fit for people to receive treatment and for people to work. They have had to make do and mend. On a number of occasions, we have been promised a new hospital, but, as yet, no provision has been made. The huts are built on a gradient and transferring patients on chairs and on trolleys can be a task. This is part of the legacy of the development that took place almost 60 years ago.
  A new hospital is needed at Pinderfields. Additions have been made to the general hospital in the form of a new accident and emergency unit, and maternity facilities were transferred from Manygates health clinic in Wakefield. We have been told that there could be further transfers of that maternity service away from Wakefield. This issue is causing great concern to many of my constituents and to people in the Wakefield area in general. The accident and emergency unit and the maternity unit rely on some of the old premises to which I have referred.
  Wakefield district is served by two general hospitals: Pinderfields and Pontefract. The latter is currently performing well, and it is fulfilling a most demanding and useful purpose. A few years ago there were eight to 10 hospitals in the Wakefield area, but now there are only two. Last year it was suggested that a new hospital could be built on a greenfield site to replace the existing two hospitals. That suggestion was dropped as a result of pressures from local people—the indigenous population—because they could see problems with closing the two hospitals and with the siting of a new hospital.
  We have been advised that at Pinderfields general hospital there will be a £60 million replacement of the old huts and new buildings will supplement the existing and traditional buildings. We have also been advised that between £9 million and £12 million will be spent on Pontefract general hospital. Who will provide the capital? The Government say that it must come from the private finance initiative—and that is why we have this Bill.
  We have been informed that the private sector will not sign contracts because of the existing laws. As has been pointed out by the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, under the law as it now stands, when a trust ceases to exist the Secretary of State need not accept the liabilities of the failed trust, including any liabilities under the PFI contracts. The Bill will resolve the problem of the private sector, but it will create impossible problems for the public sector—in this case, the national health service. It requires the Secretary of State to stand behind liabilities over which he has no control, which may total £5 billion, although we have heard that the figure might increase to £10 billion. That is the magnitude of the problem underlying the assurances that the Bill would give the private sector.
  Pinderfields Hospital NHS trust wishes to enter into a PFI contract to build the new hospital. I ask the Secretary of State or the Minister, what is our chance of having a new hospital in the Wakefield area? Too many broken promises have been made, and there is little hope of new facilities.
  What will the PFI partner demand from the hospital trust? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the PFI benefactor will not demand to be responsible for
  848
  employing cleaners, for heating supplies and for the back-up services and responsibilities of the new hospital? We are informed that there might be demands in the PFI agreement for the PFI to engage people and run the hospital as an agent on behalf of the trust.
  May we have clear, decisive answers to my questions and those asked by other Opposition Members? When can we have a new hospital, and will it be run and administered by the national health service with no strings attached to the PFI agreement?
  The position in Pinderfields and in Wakefield is unusual because the Pinderfields site covers a substantial tract of land, owned by the trust, which could be developed for housing and commercial undertakings and is of value—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman. This is a Bill about the totality of the PFI and the covering of potential debts. It is not appropriate to go into the detail of the landholdings of a particular hospital.
  Mr. O'Brien: I was arguing that the liabilities mentioned in the Bill include liabilities that are of value to the PFI developer. That aspect of PFI development worries many people, because there are assets that might influence an agreement.
  On that site is the old Stanley Royd hospital, which would be included under the heading of liabilities in the Bill but is a valuable area of land and buildings. If that is included in the liabilities, it will be a substantial incentive to the PFI partner. I draw attention to that background because, if that area were of value and were valued, the PFI would make little effort to raise money because the money would be there in buildings and land, which are now available for disposal.
  Why do we need a PFI in the Pontefract and Wakefield area when all those "liabilities" that are really assets are available to the NHS? Why do we need a private sector partner when the NHS has those valuable assets at its disposal? Who are the people in the NHS and the trusts, representing the people of Wakefield, who would offer our hospital services to private money-lenders when valuable public assets are available?
  The PFI is privatisation in the form in which it has been presented tonight, and the Bill is intended to prop up the private sector. Why must we proceed down that road?
  At present, we have two trusts and two hospitals. We are told that the two trusts will merge into one—each trust will cease to operate and a new one will be created. Problems are inherent in such an arrangement. There is much suspicion about the proposal. We are told that there will be a three-month consultation process before the new trust can be formed.
  I draw the Minister's attention to a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State by the chairman of Wakefield community health council, in which he drew attention to the practices of previous Administrations. He said that members of Wakefield CHC are extremely concerned that promises that were made when previous Administrations were changed have not been fulfilled. The letter explains the anxieties of many people in my constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the CHC especially refers to the Bill, this sort of contribution is not

  849
  in order in the debate. It is fair enough to use the example of the hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to elucidate the main elements of the Bill, but not just to record what the CHC said on a previous occasion about that development.
  Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am drawing attention to the lack of confidence in the consultation procedure that we are advised must be undertaken. If the Secretary of State and the Minister read carefully the letter of 6 March from the chairman of the CHC, they will understand why, in view of what happened previously, people in the Wakefield area are suspicious of the proposals to build a new hospital under the PFI and to change the hospital trusts.
  Unless the Minister can give assurances tonight about the issues that I have mentioned on behalf of my constituents and the people who depend on the services of Pinderfields general hospital, and allay their suspicions, we shall not have the confidence that one would expect when debating such a Bill.
  Because of the experiences mentioned by the chairman of the CHC and other people in the Wakefield area, I believe that the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of Labour Members should be supported.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and to the House for not being in the Chamber for the opening speeches; my parliamentary duties elsewhere, including attendance at a Delegated Legislation Committee, meant that I could not be here.
  I am very anxious to speak in the debate because I regard the passage of the Bill as crucial to the interests of my constituents, in bringing about the construction of a new hospital in Worcester. If the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whose speech was more reasonable than those of some of his colleagues, really wants a new hospital to be built in his constituency soon, as he says, he should reconsider his voting intentions, because a vote for the reasoned amendment and against Second Reading would further delay the hospital's construction. I am anxious to avoid that in my case, and the hon. Gentleman should be anxious to avoid it in his constituency.
  It is a shame that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) marred a typically effective and detailed contribution by his extraordinary attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. To accuse my right hon. Friend of indolence and ignorance—I believe that those were the words that the hon. Gentleman used—is like accusing the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of being a member of new Labour, as it is just about as implausible. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman marred his contribution by such comments.
  I was also sorry to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) as, in his fine contribution, he said many of the things that I had been hoping to say in my speech. [Interruption.] I hear cries from the Opposition Benches that my hon. Friend was reading from a central office brief. I can let Opposition Members into a secret: I
  850
  have seen that brief and I know that my hon. Friend was not reading from it; he was making his own speech—for which I pay tribute to him.
  The Bill is genuinely technical. It is effectively a one-clause Bill for each hon. Member. Clause 1 is for hon. Members from England and Wales; clause 2 is for hon. Members from Scotland; and clause 3 is for hon. Members from Northern Ireland. Each hon. Member regards the Bill with his or her own constituency in mind and sees it as a one-clause Bill. It is almost a two-phrase Bill. Clause 1 states that the Secretary of State
  "must exercise his statutory powers to transfer property, rights and liabilities of the body so as to secure that all of its liabilities are dealt with."
  The last few words of that phrase,
  "so as to secure that all of its liabilities are dealt with",
  go to the heart of our consideration of the Bill; they also go to the heart of the future of the PFI in the national health service.
  The notes to clauses, which were helpfully provided by the Department of Health, clearly state what the Bill is about. The notes state:
  "The policy objective is to ensure that, if a NHS trust is dissolved or a health authority or special health authority abolished, its liabilities are transferred to another specified NHS body, or the Secretary of State. This is to ensure there are no residual liabilities left outstanding. The objective is to assure those who contract with such NHS bodies that liabilities will not be extinguished in the event of a NHS trust, health authority or special health authority ceasing to exist."
  The next paragraph of the notes is important:
  "To date all liabilities of trusts have been transferred elsewhere on dissolution, and even without this legislation it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would not do so in future. This change, however, removes all doubt on the matter."
  If I understand the Bill correctly, it simply makes it clear that the taxpayer stands, as he or she should, firmly behind all the liabilities of the national health service. To that extent, the Bill should not attract any controversy in the House this evening. What it means in practical terms is tremendously important. It provides the reassurance that is crucial to all those who trade with the NHS, from the smallest retailer—the provider of the odd bit of stationery or greengrocery—to the largest PFI contractor. There will always be someone who is prepared to honour the NHS's side of the contract.
  Does it matter whether we pass the Bill? After all, the notes on clauses state that, in practice, all liabilities have so far been transferred elsewhere on dissolution and it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State will do anything different in future. But the Bill matters fundamentally to the future of the PFI, because those who stand behind the PFI contractors—those who will undertake the financing of projects—attach huge importance to the provision. Therefore, it must matter to every hon. Member who cares about the future of the NHS and who shares the vision, which I thought was common across the House, of the need to develop a more effective partnership between the public and private sectors.
  What the PFI does—and will be able to do only if the Bill secures its passage—is to provide more capital than would otherwise have been available for the NHS. We can play word games about whether that money is additional to the overall levels of funding, but, ultimately, the Bill will enable an overall increase in the capital schemes in the NHS.

  851
  About 25 large-scale NHS/PFI schemes have recently been advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities—all the schemes are worth more than £25 million. I am afraid that I have not done the arithmetic in my head, but the resulting sum of money is clearly large. I am glad to say that one of the schemes that has been advertised in the journal is for the new Worcester district general hospital.
  If only half those 25 schemes were to succeed and come to fruition, that would still represent a huge increase in the capital programme of the NHS. That capital programme is significantly higher now than it was when the Government came to power. There has been a huge increase in the capital programme of the NHS, plus massive increases in current expenditure on it—there have been massive real terms increases. I think that I am right in saying that there has been an increase from about 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1979 to more than 6 per cent. now. The capital programme could be threatened if the Bill did not secure its passage.
  The working of the PFI depends on the substantial transfer of risk to the private sector. What sort of risks? The obvious risks are in design and construction, and in the costs associated with the commissioning of any new facility. There are also risks involved in the costs of operating that facility; there is a risk that, during the facility's lifetime, technological obsolescence may occur. All those risks need to be transferred to the private sector as part of the PFI, but the Bill deals with one risk that need not be—and should not and could not be expected to be—transferred to the private sector. If I have understood it correctly, that risk is that the Secretary of State might rob a trust of its hospital and leave all the liabilities behind. That risk would clearly worry any reasonable-minded financier or lawyer.
  The Bill is important; an article in today's edition of the Financial Times states:
  "PFI hopes hinge on emergency bill".
  I do not know to what extent it is an emergency Bill, but I agree with the first half of that: PFI hopes do hinge on the Bill. I shall be fair and even-handed; the article states that while some
  "analysts are not yet convinced of the long-term viability of PFI in the health sector, most seem to accept Mr. Dorrell's assurances on the bill. Mr. Kingsley Manning, managing director of Newchurch and Co, a consulting firm involved in several health PFI projects, said that the risk transfer in PFI was never meant to refer to trust liabilities."
  The article quotes Mr. Manning as saying:
  "The risks that the government is attempting to transfer through PFI are those that the private sector operators would be expected to have some control over, like volume, activity and performance … The new legislation just puts health in line with other government departments."
  It is as simple as that: the Bill simply puts the Department of Health in line with the other Departments of State that use the PFI.
  The PFI does not seek to privatise the health service. Opposition Members' attitude to the Bill and the PFI is confusing. I sometimes hear them claim that they invented the PFI and I sometimes hear them seek to undermine it—often on the same day, to different audiences. On 28 November last year, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said from the Dispatch Box:

  "The PFI is right in principle. We have supported it, and in many ways we have been advocating it."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1077.]
  852
  The right hon. Gentleman should let his vote follow his voice and support the Bill this evening—it is crucial to the future of the PFI.
  At a conference in London in May last year, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, said:
  "I have long been associated with arguing for public-private partnerships … I made the case for private sector involvement in public investment."
  However, only four or five weeks later, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said from the Dispatch Box:
  "there is growing alarm at the way … in which the Government openly use the private finance initiative to privatise core … services."—[Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 23.]
  Labour Members must make up their minds—and, with respect, they should decide to support the Bill, which will genuinely enhance the future prospects of the PFI. On 18 January, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) 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".
  Perhaps he should have listened to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) only five days earlier at a conference in Birmingham, when she said:
  "I don't call it a Private Finance Initiative, I call it a privatisation initiative."
  Labour Members seem to be saying two things but doing only one of them—that seems to sum up their position with regard to the Bill and the PFI.
  The Bill is an essential underpinning of the PFI, which is the pragmatic way of introducing partnership into the national health service. The debate so far has focused too much on the issue of cost. Of course cost matters, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to believe that the issue is only about cost. It is not. The benefits include additional capital funding, which will mean more projects overall and better cost control—so there is an element of discipline related to cost. The PFI will reduce the risk for the taxpayer and make better use of existing assets, as the hon. Member for Normanton said. I am sure that some imaginative ideas will come forward as part of the PFI bidding process in the health sector, about how to use the residual assets of NHS trusts.
  My constituency case involves three sites, and I believe that the involvement of the private sector will assist us to make good use of them. The private sector will bring a more constructive and entrepreneurial approach to the issue, rather than the old, staid public sector approach. The PFI will shorten construction times by introducing innovations in the way in which hospitals are built. That will bring real benefits. We have seen how, in the Prison Service, private contractors can build more quickly than builders were able to under the old public sector contracts.
  There will be innovation in its fullest sense. I have hinted already at innovation in the construction process and at making better use of existing assets. There will be innovation also in service provision. Those benefits could be jeopardised if the Bill did not receive a Second Reading, because the flow of PFI finance to big projects would dry up immediately.

  853
  Much of what I have heard in the debate leads me to believe that Labour Members have reverted to type—to old Labour—in opposing the Bill. The hon. Member for Normanton referred to "private moneylenders"—which is a particularly graphic and vengeful phrase. That old hostility has come through the debate with stark and startling clarity.
  The fact that innovation will be put at risk if the Bill does not receive a Second Reading is best illustrated by what is occurring in South Worcestershire. The South Worcestershire community NHS trust has co-operated with a local fitness centre to provide a £250,000 scheme that will benefit the whole community and provide new services and revenue to the trust. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the facility on Friday last week, and he was deeply impressed by what he saw. If we do not pass the Bill, that scheme—which it is hoped will be replicated throughout the trust area—will face unnecessary difficulties and uncertainty in the future.
  The trust has teamed with a health and fitness company to build a new exercise and fitness studio on the hospital site. The company, One-on-One, is working in partnership with the Evesham community hospital to help meet "The Health of the Nation" fitness targets. A press release issued last year states:
  "Seven-and-a-half thousand square feet of brand new exercise and fitness studios with the very latest equipment will be ready for use in the autumn … But it's the alliance with the hospital that makes the health-promoting difference. Hospital patients will have access to new facilities and the award-winning 'One-on-One' team—they've gained a coveted British Standards/ISO 9002 Award for Quality—will be working as part of a wider NHS team to help persuade people across the Vale"—
  that is the Vale of Evesham—
  "to become more physically active".
  That imaginative partnership scheme is the result not just of a partnership between the public and private sectors—I do not wish to pretend that it is as simple as that. More than one public sector body is involved: the public health department, the district council and the trust have forged an alliance that will benefit my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer).
  That PFI scheme will provide innovative facilities for hospital patients at no cost to the trust. Unless we pass the Bill, innovative schemes such as that—which share risks and benefits between the public and private sectors and which have proved in practice to bring enormous benefits to both parties—will be put at unnecessary risk. I shall not weary you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by listing the services that the scheme will provide.
  Mr. Whittingdale: Go on.
  Mr. Luff: No, I shall not as that might try your generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of the schemes are clearly aimed primarily at the private sector aspects of the fitness centre: fitness testing, health and fitness for 50 years plus, sports injury rehabilitation and so on. However, there are some mainstream health facilities, including osteoporosis and arthritis care; respiratory, cardio pulmonary health and fitness and so on. That is the kind of innovation that can flow from the injection of
  854
  private finance into the NHS, and it will be threatened if the Bill—which goes to the heart of the private finance initiative—does not secure a Second Reading.
  The Bill is very important for all those who live in south Worcestershire. The people have campaigned for 30 years for a new hospital to replace the current three sites—one of which is the second oldest site in England where patients are still treated. The British Medical Association was founded on that site in Worcester many years ago. My predecessor, Lord Walker of Worcester, turned the first sod of the new hospital site in August 1993, but nothing has occurred since then. There has been a long battle to persuade the region about the business case for the hospital.
  We now face the prospect of an excellent hospital with outstanding core medical facilities and a flexible number of beds. Everyone would benefit from the new facilities that the development would provide. The new Worcester hospital, for which my predecessor and I have campaigned so vigorously, must not falter because of a simple, technical issue that the House can resolve easily. That is why the Bill is important to me, to my constituents and to all those who live in south Worcestershire.
  The private finance process is progressing well in Worcestershire: it is an example to other trusts round the country of how to achieve aims quickly and professionally. I am not prepared to let down the trust's hard-working managers and medical staff by allowing a problem at national level to thwart their attempts to advance the scheme quickly.
  We face serious issues in creating the right commercial and organisational arrangements between the private sector and the NHS. However, the Bill clears away the main obstacle. There is an excellent team in Worcester, with a new chief executive, which is committed to making the private finance process work. It wants to pioneer a sensible deal that will combine the best of the national health service and the private sector, to bring the sorts of innovations that we have seen in Evesham in the past few months.
  The trust has put out invitations to tender to three short-listed consortiums—Laser, Bovis and Bryants—and the bids are due to be received by 10 July this year. If all goes well—if there are no hiccups and the Bill secures its passage—the contracts should be signed this year.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Notwithstanding what the article in the Financial Times said this morning, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State told the Treasury Select Committee that the Bill was not needed in order to complete those PFI deals?
  Mr. Luff: I am at liberty to disagree with my Front Bench—that is one of the privileges that Back Benchers have. I think that the Bill is important, and that is also the view of those to whom I have spoken in the NHS. They think that their financiers will require the security afforded by the Bill, and I am very happy to take their advice. I shall listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I believe that the Bill is important—and my local trust believes that also.
  The contracts with the three consortia must be signed and every legal obstacle must be removed from their path. We must provide suitable health care to the people of my

  855
  county into the next millennium. Years of waiting can be brought to an end. The medical and clinical staff at the hospital deserve the full support of the House this evening, to ensure that the PFI helps them to deliver the highest-quality treatment for the patients whom they serve.
  I looked at the reasoned amendment before the House and I despaired. It rests its case on the suggestion that there will be some
  "abuse of the Private Finance Initiative to advance privatisation of the NHS".
  That is not how any Conservative Member sees it. We are committed to a public national health service, largely free at the point of delivery. If I thought that the Bill were a back-door route to the privatisation of NHS hospitals, I could not support it this evening. Private finance makes little or no difference to the basis on which health care is provided, but it will improve the quality of care, the range of services that hospitals can offer and the physical condition of hospitals.
  Obviously, I hope that the debate will change the minds of Liberal and Labour Members and that the Opposition will be persuaded to drop their reasoned amendment and support the Bill on Second Reading. I want the Bill and I want my hospital, and I believe that the two are closely related. For narrow partisan reasons, I am tempted to hope that the Opposition stick to their guns and vote for the amendment and against Second Reading. If they do, they will have given me a powerful weapon in my county. when I explain what they have done to frustrate the construction of our new hospital.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), who spoke for quite some time, did not speak before the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale). He could then have read out the Conservative central office brief and that would have stopped him using his usual tactics for prolonging the debate. They include repeating what others have said, reading out the Bill, its clauses and the notes to the clauses and then speaking at great length about his constituency.
  Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members confirmed two of my worst fears about the private finance initiative. First, whatever anyone says, it is in part a substitute for Government funding. It is no longer additional funding. Secondly, it is yet another method of slowly but surely privatising the national health service.
  I remain of the view that, as far as possible, the NHS should be provided and financed by Government. That is not always possible. The potatoes are not always provided. To use the same analogy as the Secretary of State, tonight's measure might turn out to be the potato Bill.
  It is important that the Government provide as much as possible, otherwise, bit by bit, the national health service is gradually eroded. Every time they erode a little piece, it becomes easier to erode another piece and that leads to the slippery slope, the black-white shift of philosophy whereby what was unacceptable yesterday becomes acceptable today, not because the principle has changed, but because there has been a slow but sure philosophical shift.
  856
  Having stated my position, I realise that there are practicalities. We live in the real world, there are constraints on the public sector borrowing requirement and Governments have to take account of such influences as interest rates. Therefore, there may be a case for considering the private finance initiative, provided that it is used in the interests of the health service, the risk is shared and the investment is to the benefit of all.
  The more I look at it, the more obvious it becomes that the PFI is biased against the national health service and protects the private sector. The Bill completely removes all substantial risk from the private financier and places the liability back in our hands. It makes it easy for the private sector to become involved because there is no risk. The Bill gives what is virtually a carte blanche guarantee to the private sector. Trusts will be able to borrow money from the private sector and the Government will pick up the liability. I cannot see how that will not be set against the PSBR.
  I understand that parts of the private finance initiative will not be set against the public sector borrowing requirement, but given the contents of the Bill and the projects that have been mentioned, I cannot understand how the Secretary of State can accept completely free and open liability for money borrowed by trusts through the PFI without setting it against the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, the private sector would incur no risk.
  The hon. Member for Worcester said that some risks would be incurred. Those risks have been set out before, but they are minimal. First, there is a delivery risk. Contractors would be responsible for every aspect of establishing the service on time. Any contractor who is worried about delivering on time should not be in business. Secondly, there is volume risk, whereby the contractor cannot expect a guaranteed income. That is part of business. Even potato producers do not expect a guaranteed volume and they also incur a delivery risk. Thirdly, there are obsolescence risks. There is even a potential obsolescence risk with potatoes. Finally, there are economic risks, as contractors are no longer protected by inflation indexed payments. Those risks are part of normal contractual arrangements. They are normal business risks that anyone would expect.
  The Bill does not seek to protect risks that anyone in business would expect. It seeks to protect almost open-ended liabilities incurred by trusts. They are not payments out of the current account; they are capital risks that will have to be set against the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The PH has a long history. As the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon, who read the Conservative central office brief, will know, it stems from the Ryrie rules that were established by the National Economic Development Council in 1981. They were designed to introduce private finance into nationalised industries, but they were very strictly drawn. They allowed public finance only if it was the cheapest option and the private sector carried the full risk. Those were two important criteria, and the Bill removes one of them. They were not viable because the private sector would not accept them on that basis, therefore they were amended over the years and eventually dropped.

  857
  They were replaced by the private finance initiative that was introduced in 1992 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). He was quoted as saying that its purpose was
  "to remove the unnecessary obstacles to private sector investment in Britain's infrastructure."
  He made sure that it was biased in favour of the private sector and that any risks would fall on the Government. That is what the Bill does.
  The PFI comprises a number of features, including the possible involvement of leasing arrangements. As long as a project was shown to be profitable, it could go ahead without having to be compared with similar public sector activity, but there had to be a sensible transfer of risk. It was reiterated that the private sector must genuinely assume the risk. That proved to be unworkable, because the private sector would not accept the risk, so the Bill removes all risk from the private sector and places it once again with the Government and the taxpayer.
  The private sector will fail to realise the potential. Conservative Members who made pleas for their constituencies and said that the PFI is the way forward have false hopes, as do the Government. The only way that they can succeed is if there is no risk to the private sector—I do not believe that the Treasury or any Government who believe in prudent finance could allow that to continue.
  The PFI is more costly than the public sector. We all know that it costs the private sector more to raise finance than it does the Government, at 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. The only way in which that money can be recouped is by leasing charges or—as increasingly happens, and this is where the PFI produces problems—support services, leading eventually to medical services. In other words, that means the privatisation of the NHS, which is the Government's long-term aim.
  Mr. Peter Puplett, a former economist with Tarmac, said about any charge:
  "On the one hand, it could be set too low and the private sector would not find it viable to finance the project. On the other, it could prove too high and the project would become a licence to print money. The latter risk is something feared by Treasury officials and ministers alike. It is the hidden handicap of the PFI and explains why so little progress has been made."
  In other words, the Government cannot win—particularly if the Bill is passed. Yes, there are short-term advantages from the PFI and yes, immediate capital outlay is avoided—but the cost over the years, because of the charges inherent in the initiative, mean that in the long term, the PFI will be much more expensive. We will spend the rest of our lives paying for that which we apparently get for nothing today.
  The PFI has no ability to establish priorities as to where the money goes, and with that goes a locked-in lack of flexibility. 'The Minister of State, Scottish Office who is on the Treasury Bench is responsible for the health service in Scotland, so he knows that Greater Glasgow health board leased under an initiative a large central office for its administrative services. Subsequently, the board's structure changed and evolution came about, and it no longer needed that office. Nevertheless, the board is locked into a 99-year lease, at massive cost, and it cannot
  858
  get rid of that liability. The contractor does not mind because it is getting the money. The liability has fallen back on us.
  A company tamed Takare in Glasgow looks after the care of the elderly. That model is no longer appropriate and we want to change it, but we are locked into a 15-year agreement under a PFI. Flexibility has been lost, charges have been increased and we are heading slowly but inexorably towards privatisation.
  The Secretary of State for Health has said that there will be no PFI in the clinical services. He tempered that today, saying that there will be no PFI where that is not wanted. We all remember the reassurance that hospitals would not be allowed to opt out to become trusts without clinical approval. That was all nonsense. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) knows that, despite the Secretary of State's remarks in this Parliament, the Scottish Office is seeking to involve private finance in not just building Stonehaven hospital and running the catering, portering and other services but in running every part of the clinical services. That is the reality in Scotland at present, and that is the PFI's hidden agenda.
  The private finance initiative will not realise the hopes and dreams of Conservative Members in terms of new hospitals. It will produce long-term costs and lead slowly but inexorably towards privatisation of the NHS. For that reason, we are right to be wary of the PFI and to vote for the reasoned amendment.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but his speech was typical of new Labour—full of sound and fury. The hon. Gentleman made all sorts of statements about the Bill being no good. but he gave no reasons and offered no sensible alternatives. That also is typical of the Labour party, which is always ready to oppose a measure but never seems able to offer anything constructive in its place.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashby: No, I am going on for the moment. I have just started.
  I am grateful to be called today because I want to show that I may be down but I am not out.
  I am astounded that the Bill is being opposed because it is a simple measure to ensure only an organisation to honour the national health service side of contracts, be what may. It does not demand much more than that, in providing confidence in the public sector. The Opposition's arguments would be much better put in Committee than now, so why are they opposing the Second Reading of this simple Bill?
  I am reminded of a constituent who came to my surgery three or four weeks ago, who had experienced some trouble with a double glazing company. I will not give its real name but will call it Parliamentary Double Glazing. My constituent had paid a deposit and then, horror of horrors, he discovered that the firm had gone into liquidation. He submitted a claim to the receiver, but was told, "Sorry, there's no money." Then my constituent found that Parliamentary Double Glazing remained in

  859
  business, but was renamed Parliamentary Double Glazing Ltd. Mark 2. Then there will be mark 3 and mark 4. That experience gave my constituent no confidence in buying double glazing at all, let alone from Parliamentary Double Glazing. We have all heard of similar experiences in our surgeries.
  What happens if trusts end and there are contracts to be fulfilled? Will there be nobody to honour those contracts and nobody to pay? Are we to have the National Health Service Parliamentary Double Glazing Ltd? Is that what we want? The Bill is highly technical and provides for the situation that I described. Why are the Opposition so keen to oppose it?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) used a large number of quotations, starting with the Leader of the Opposition saying that the PH is right in principle, then the great whopper from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that Labour had first thought of partnerships between the public and private sectors. There is no truth in that. There have been partnerships between those sectors from Conservative Governments for many a long day—but Labour likes, as always, to claim Conservative policies as its own. The Labour party loves to do that and it does it all the time, but the public will see through it.
  The Labour party is like the emperor with his new clothes. But the problem is that the Labour party's background and credentials are completely different to ours. The Leader of the Opposition wears his new clothes. He came from Islington and was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a left-winger so he is wearing new clothes. What is underneath the new clothes? The same body is still underneath. That is transparent, and exactly the same applies to the Labour party and to the speech by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that public assets would be used by private money lenders. We have also heard that the Bill would mean privatisation, but that does not square at all with the Labour party's argument that it is in favour of the PFI. It has said that it does not disagree with the PFI and has even claimed that it thought of partnerships between the public and private sectors.
  There are two sides in the Labour party and that is why it opposes the Bill. There has been no change at all in the party. Behind new Labour, there is a whole army that would not, under any circumstances, want the private sector to help any public sector body, be it the health service or any other body. In the constituencies, there is a bigger army behind the wafer-thin new Labour. Underneath it all is old Labour.
  I cannot help feeling—I think that many people agree—that the real truth about the Labour party is that it does not want the national health service to succeed. It wants to be able to say that the NHS failed under the Conservatives, when it has been a great success story. The Labour party wants to undermine absolutely everything that we are doing. Despite everything Opposition Members have said, they want to see the PFI fail. Tonight, the Labour party is pandering to its left wing, and that is why it is opposing the Bill.
  New Labour is like my house in my constituency; it has an 1820 front, but behind the front it is 200 years old. Labour Members put up a front, but behind it the
  860
  house that they live in is the house of Keir Hardie and the unions, which brought so much disaster and unhappiness to this country. Disaster was caused by the over-powerful unions, especially in the national health service. The Labour party wants to return to its old ways. It pays only lip service to the direction in which we have gone.
  I am delighted to speak in this debate because I, like others who are middle aged or entering into old age, use the health service more and more. My use of the health service has been rather public, I fear, and most people have read about it in the gutter newspapers. I use the national health service although I have BUPA. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden knows more about the gynaecological side than the male side—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his comments to the specific Bill before us or to the reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Ashby: I hope that I have related my comments so far to the Bill.
  I am proud of the NHS, because it is very good. I am proud about the direction in which the NHS has gone. I have always felt that private sector initiatives can be used by the NHS for the benefit of patients. That is the direction in which we should go, at our best and at our wisest. There is no demon in privatisation, although the Opposition would like to say that there is. What is good enough for the private sector is always good enough for the public sector and there is much to be gained from the private sector which would benefit the public sector.
  The Labour party is anxious to build a wall between the public and private sectors. It pretends that they do not exist and fights any intrusion by the private sector, however good, into any of our institutions. The Labour party frightens the public about the national health service itself, but it also tries to frighten the public about private participation in the national health service.
  The Bill is meant to give a morale boost to the private sector, yet it is opposed. We will not obtain private sector participation unless support is given to it. The private sector has to know that if it participates, it will not face bills that it should never have to face. The Bill would give the private sector a confidence that it should have.
  It is a myth that the private finance initiative leads to delays. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is a hard-working constituency Member in Leicestershire. I have known him for a long time and part of my constituency was in his constituency before the boundary changes in 1983. When I was selected, I consulted my right hon. Friend to find out what was happening and I asked him especially about the local national health service. We have done especially well. We have the new Glenfield hospital and various other hospitals in the centre of Leicester, but there were enormous delays in planning and financing those hospitals. It was a long time before we got the Glenfield hospital, even though I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State worked hard to try to push the new hospital through.
  The situation would be very different today. The problems started in 1979 because so many hospitals were closed by the Labour party and there were long delays in building new hospitals. As soon as the Conservative Government came to power, many new hospitals were

  861
  built and new initiatives took place. If the PFI had been in place, those schemes could have come on much more quickly and we would have had more hospitals which would have been more successful.
  A private sector of a sort has been involved in hospital building for some time. I have a marvellous community hospital in Coalville. Before the war, the local people started to collect for their community hospital. After the war, they collected harder, and then the project died away a little. Then there was a tremendous burst of energy and a great collection took place for the community hospital in Coalville. The people were able to participate, by their charitable efforts, in the building of the hospital. Such participation by the private sector in financing a community hospital gives the people involved a sense of belonging. After all, the private sector possesses a great deal of expertise and can do a great deal to help the public sector with its building programmes.
  Another charge levelled at the Government is that no new money is forthcoming. The Government also stand charged—without a shred of evidence—of having cut funding for the NHS. We all know that that is not true. Changes in the health service and in the sort of provision of which it is capable have led to greater expenditure. We should always remember that all capital expenditure has a revenue implication, however.
  We must make use of the best in the private sector. This Bill fulfils all that I hope for. I look forward to the legislation supporting the private sector in this initiative, and to even greater future initiatives that will allow the health service to expand, to give of its best and to continue to be efficient. The NHS is the jewel in our crown, and I am extremely proud of it. [Interruption.] I cannot hear a word of what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is saying, so I shall take no notice of it.
  The Conservative period in government has resulted in a vastly improved national health service. The Bill does everything possible to further that improvement.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am glad to see the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) in his place. It must have taken some courage for him to come to make a speech today, although I suspect it was not his best ever. When Conservatives read it in years to come, they may realise that they were wrong about the PFI. I am compelled to speak this evening because of the constituency problems created for my electors by the PFI and by measures such as this Bill.
  There is no doubt that the Bill is about removing the risk from private companies, thereby allowing them to own our hospitals with no fear of being out of pocket. The original Treasury rules required schemes funded under the PFI to involve a genuine transfer of risk to the private sector so as to justify the rate of return that might be generated. The Bill gets rid of that risk, leaving just a higher rate of return.
  The Bill has become necessary because the private finance initiative has fallen at the first hurdle. The banks have decided that they are not prepared to take the risk, while the Minister has decided that he cannot afford the political embarrassment of letting the PFI fall by the wayside.
  862
  The failure of the PFI is graphically illustrated in Carlisle. It is just one in a long list of broken Government promises about the development of our district general hospital, Cumberland infirmary. The redevelopment of that infirmary began in 1968 under a Labour Government, and the first phase was completed in 1974 under another Labour Government. Next, there were various false starts, but approval was finally given for phase 2 in 1988, under the old capital allocation rules. The scheme was worked up and a start date was sought, but in September 1992 the Carlisle hospitals, under pressure from the Government, decided to become a trust. When they looked at the figures, however, they decided that the trust would not be viable if it went ahead with the building scheme—so Government dogma got in the way and the scheme was abandoned.
  The decision to abort the scheme was taken in the very week the tender was due to go out, so there was great anger in my constituency. The new trust promised to set about developing another scheme, and came up with one which, the trust claimed, would provide fewer beds but would achieve the same objective and bring in savings of nearly £2 million a year if the buildings went up on the same site. Much time and public money were expended; in fact, the chief executive has quoted a figure of £400,000 spent on fees to get the new scheme in place.
  The trust's scheme was finalised in the summer of 1994. There followed another body blow: the Government stepped in and said that the scheme should be put through the PFI. The trust argued that it should go ahead under the old scheme, because that was ready. Alternatively, it should be fast-tracked. The Government, however, maintained that the PFI would not delay the scheme long—that it would take five or six months to get it through the system.
  It took six months just to place the advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a necessary part of the legal preparations. So six months were lost to bureaucracy.
  Next, hundreds of companies applied. They were sifted down to 16, and a great deal of work went into producing a short-list of three by 9 May 1995. This was heralded as a great victory for the PFI. On 5 September, a short press release was issued by the Carlisle Hospitals NHS trust, saying that two of the companies had pulled out. That left a short-list of one; logic dictates that there is not much competition in such circumstances. The PF initiative should have been aborted, and the public money that the Government had once promised should have been provided to build the hospital.
  The Government insisted that the disciplines of the market place meant that a short-list of one was acceptable. I understand that one of the subsidiaries of the shortlisted company is being investigated by the Ministry of Defence and the police for fraud. I refer to AMEC. Fears are growing that, because AMEC is the only bidder, costs will escalate and the millions of pounds that were to be saved by putting the facilities on one site will not materialise. There could even be extra costs. I want to know from the Minister whether, if extra costs are involved, the Government will meet them—or will they have to come out of patient care? That would be wholly unacceptable.
  I understand that, although there has been no official announcement, AMEC wants to run the portering, the catering, security, car parking and laundry services. It is

  863
  also keenly interested—I bet it is—in running the medical records department. But the consultants in the hospital are opposed to that. There is a great deal of disquiet about the PFI among them, and they find themselves in a dilemma. They need the new hospital. They need the new facilities, but they do not want private sector involvement. One consultant said that it does not matter how good the surgeons are; if the laundry does not work and there are no sheets, one cannot do any operations. Another surgeon said:
  "You can't expect a private company who has so much at stake in the hospital not to try to put profit before patient care".
  Consultants are in that dilemma. To some extent, many of us who have been promised new hospitals are in a dilemma: we do not want PFI, but we do not want our hospital projects delayed.
  During a recent takeover bid for AMEC by Kvaerner, a Norwegian company, I met, on 11 December last year, the managing directors of both companies. I was able to get a commitment from AMEC that if it did get the scheme and took over some of the services, it would recognise a trade union. I had great difficulty explaining PFI to the Norwegian managing director of Kvaerner. He said, "We have done some privatisation in Norway, but we haven't stooped to selling off the hospitals yet." As it happened, AMEC beat off Kvaerner, which, I understand, is trying to take over Trafalgar House, but that is a different story.
  The plans under consideration are creating great concern, because one of the options is to reduce the number of beds in Carlisle to less than what many of us think is necessary to provide adequate cover, especially in times of emergency, of epidemics. In the winter, there are many cases of flu and of people going into hospital. This year, there are 556 beds in Carlisle at our three sites, but the demand was such that we had to open up another ward. I understand that the bed numbers for the single-site hospital—there will be no more beds—will be 100 fewer than that total. Although I appreciate the growth of day surgery—I recently benefited from day surgery, and I suspect that, with a hernia, I would not have been able to stand for as long—we are greatly afraid. We are worried that we will get the worst of both worlds—that we will get the finance for the new hospital but that it will be decided that we cannot close the old city general, which will mean that there will be two sites, and that one hospital will be the workshop. That would be most unsatisfactory and most uneconomic from all points of view.
  One forgets that when we are talking about delays in hospital provision we are talking about patient care, and, sometimes, unnecessary deaths; unfortunately, that is what happens in Carlisle. I do not believe in shroud waving, as it has no effect in this place, but the reality is that we have a problem in Carlisle with our maternity service, which is on the other side of the city from where the paediatricians are based. A report investigated the high number of perinatal mortalities in east Cumbria. On a regional basis, between 1988 and 1992, we should have had 55 deaths; we had 75.
  In the northern region, my area is not one of particular deprivation, so the number of deaths should have been below the regional average, but that did not happen. One of the reasons given for that is that the paediatricians could not get across the city in time to treat sick babies.
  864
  It was estimated, not by me but by the director in charge of community services in east Cumbria, that every year there are one or two unnecessary deaths of babies in Carlisle because of that. It has not been mentioned often enough today, but the delay in the provision of facilities costs lives, and PFI in my constituency has delayed our scheme by at least two years.
  I have been involved in the health service in Cumbria for many years. For a short time, until we had a Conservative Government in 1979, I was chairman of the health authority. We have been fighting for better provision. I have said all along that I will not believe that we will get a new hospital until I see them lay the first bricks. In my case and, I suspect, in many others in the rest of the country, PFI will delay. It will be a sham. It will raise people's expectations, and at the end of the day the money will not be there. The bankers will not be able to finance it and the Government will not be able to afford the long-term costs. That is why I shall be voting for the reasoned amendment.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who speaks with real experience, having been chairman of his local health authority in previous years. I understand the frustrations that he voiced about the future of the hospital in his constituency. At times, I have done the same in the House for my constituency of Dartford. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) made a speech earlier—I was not able to hear it—and gave an account of the progress that we intend to make, and will make, in the provision of a new district general hospital in Dartford in the early part of next year.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Carlisle, I prefer to look down the telescope the other way round. Whereas he looks from the big end down to the small, I look from the small end down to the big. A pessimist says that the bottle is half empty. An optimist says that the bottle is half full. Although we might have cause to unite, in the context of the Bill, on some manifestations of health service provision in the past few years, we must differ, in that the hon. Gentleman came to bury his health trust, whereas I come here to praise mine.
  In the context of PFI, my hon. Friend the Minister will remember an Adjournment debate of 11 January this year, which I inspired, applied for and successfully obtained, on hospital provision in north-west Kent. My hon. Friend was able to tell the House on that occasion that my local health trust treated about 164,000 patients in 1994–95 and that it is expected that it will treat a further 10 per cent. in the present year. In addition, it achieved an impressive 5-star ranking in 1994–95 in the context of NHS performance tables.
  As to where we see the PFI going, I can give an account of the delays, tribulations and frustrations in Dartford and Gravesham over the years, but I see the PFI as a real way forward—not a delaying or blocking mechanism or an impediment to provision but, rather, opening up and clearing the way. The window of opportunity, which we hear so often as a cliché, is real in the sense that my constituents can now look forward—if the process continues at the speed, and with the rigour and robustness we have seen hitherto—to the new district hospital being started in the early part of 1997.

  865
  The hon. Member for Carlisle gave an historical and chronological account of events in Carlisle. I shall do the same for Dartford, but not at great length. In June 1995, my local trust was granted approval to test the scheme, to provide a new general hospital under the PFI process. It advertised the scheme quite quickly in the Official Journal of the European Communities. On 5 September, following a pre-qualification exercise, four consortia, representing some big household names, were selected, and, of course, the process goes on. An important element in the short Adjournment debate on 11 January was that my hon. Friend the Minister was able to say:
  "The overall process is as short and efficient as it can be, consistent with ensuring that value for money and the requirements of public accountability are achieved. If all goes to plan, building work should begin during the first half of 1997—that is the present supposition."
  My hon. Friend the Minister went on:
  "I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford that the project has the full support of all concerned—at authority level, regional level, NHS executive level and Government level. I can assure him also that the evaluation will be carried out as speedily as possible in Whitehall, so there will be no delays at our end."—[Official Report, 11 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 388–89.]
  This important legislation rounds off the process for those from the private sector who wish to enter into partnership with the health trust in the construction of hospital facilities and the provision of care services so essential in modern society. It will show them that there is a guarantee, support, an attitude of mind within Government, so that when and if existing health boards and trusts are wound up, there will be a commitment to fund the liabilities from the NHS side. This is important in the concept of partnership.
  We have heard something tonight, and we will need to hear a little more, about where the Opposition stand in their support for the PFI. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) tried but failed. She told the House that the Labour party supported the PFI but then proceeded to give reasons why she did not.
  We have on public record the statement made by the Leader of the official Opposition on 4 October 1994 in a speech to his party conference. He said:
  "We would get public and private finance working together in transport, in housing, in capital projects, in health and education."
  A little later, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), a former deputy leader of the Labour party, disagreed and said:
  "Market testing represents creeping privatisation. As does the Private Finance Initiative."
  The present deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), speaking at a London conference on 31 May 1995, said:
  "I have long been associated with arguing for public-private partnerships".
  That is true. As shadow transport spokesman, he made that point during many debates. At that speech in London, he went on to say:
  "I made the case for private sector involvement in public investment."
  Exactly so. The Opposition must decide what they stand for and give tonight an outright declaration of their support for the PFI as we have determined it in the context of the NHS.
  866
  The great benefit to the NHS of the PFI is that such private capital is additional to that which can be obtained from public funding sources. That is the most important point to be made in the debate. In the context of the PFI, we are talking about additional funds, not limiting but enhancing and improving public funding of the NHS.
  I welcome the Bill. It is short compared with many that I have seen in my time. It is necessary. It gives undertakings, commitment and loyalty. I hope that Opposition Members will seriously think about how they vote tonight, and not make it a left-right, Opposition-Government matter, but join Conservative Members in the Lobby tonight. I give up on the hon. Member for Peckham, because she is wholly without commitment in everything that she says and does, but there are other Opposition Members who are much clearer in their philosophy and I invite them to join us in the Lobby this evening.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate, but I was serving on Committees elsewhere in the House.
  I support the Opposition amendment which sets out in crystal clear terms the problems with the Bill. The problem with the private finance initiative in the major hospital projects on which Conservative Members have concentrated today is that it does not really bring in any significant new money to those projects, but rather postpones payment of the bills.
  In the case of a new toll bridge, for example, where a new source of revenue is created in the form of tolls, the PFI releases new capital from the private sector, which is additional and which can be used for constructing the bridge. But in the end, a hospital is all paid for out of taxation, and the rate of interest on the capital involved, because it comes from the private sector, is greater than it would be for a publicly financed project. Therefore, it is right for my hon. Friends to raise their concerns in the amendment about the use of the PFI in the health service.
  That apart, if the only effect of the Bill was to reassure providers of private finance contributing to PFI projects there would be much less objection to it. In reality, however, it is a much wider Bill which appears to give a blank cheque to NHS trusts. It gives them unlimited security for borrowing, which they have never had before. NHS trusts have not been able to take out mortgages in the past, so they have done little borrowing. Under the Bill, the whole of the public sector would stand behind their borrowing but there is no mechanism in it to control the exercise of the immense new powers that it conveys upon them. That is the problem to which the amendment draws attention. As the amendment says, the Bill
  "gives an open-ended commitment on the part of the taxpayer to honour the liabilities of NHS Trusts irrespective of the manner in which they have accrued".
  I have not yet heard any Conservative Member address that point.
  NHS trusts cannot be dissolved through insolvency, only by order of the Secretary of State, and the Bill sets out what will then happen. In the few minutes that I have, I want to suggest some of the circumstances in which a trust might run into financial problems of a kind which could lead to the powers in the Bill being invoked, other

  867
  than the circumstances for which we have been told that the Bill is intended—where a trust is dissolved for a non-financial reason and PFI liabilities are outstanding. But there are many other circumstances in which the powers in the Bill might be invoked. I shall illustrate that by describing the immense financial pressures being faced by health providers in my area of east London as the new financial year approaches. I want to concentrate on the possibility of trusts accruing liabilities in a manner other than through the PFI, as the reasoned amendment points out.
  The work load borne by the health service in Newham is immense because the demand is immense. The Government's own figures show that Newham has the highest level of urban deprivation in the country with Tower Hamlets and Hackney, the other two areas covered by the East London and the City health authority, only just behind. I take no pleasure in saying it, but it is a fact that in east London there is an immense concentration of urban deprivation which is reflected in the area's health statistics. Whichever statistics one chooses, they all tell the same story: the health service in east London faces an immense task.
  In 1988–92, the standardised mortality ratio in Newham was 109 compared with 100 in Britain. In 1992, it was 113. From 1988–92, the number of stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life per 1,000 total births was 9.8 in Newham compared with 8.2 in England and Wales. The percentage of total residents aged 16 and over who were prevented from working by permanent sickness was 3.9 per cent. in England and Wales but 4.9 per cent. in Newham. The percentage of limiting, long-standing illness among children aged up to four years was 2.7 per cent. in Newham compared with just 1.9 per cent. in England and Wales. Births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44—this statistic is good news, but it creates considerable work for the health service—were 87.3 in Newham compared with 63.6 in England and Wales.
  Alongside that picture of the health service's considerable work load, the resources available to the service in east London are plainly inadequate. According to the Government's 1993 figures, about three quarters of general practitioner premises in Newham are in poor condition. Since then, nothing has substantially—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is about NHS trusts. It is certainly not about GPs' premises. It is not in order to relate detailed statistics on Newham, important though they are. They need to be related to the Bill or to the reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The possibility of a private finance initiative to raise the standard of GP premises has been considered by one of the trusts in the region, but I take your point. The community health service trust has considered that possibility, but I will endeavour to relate my remarks more closely to the Bill.
  As the reasoned amendment sets out, trusts may accrue liabilities in other ways and not simply through the PFI. That is the anxiety to which I want to draw attention. I talked about GPs' premises. The number of dentists and health visitors employed by the community health service trust is small relative to the population.
  That is the position today. What worries me is the stress and the despair that I see among some of the people working in those conditions for the health service trusts.
  868
  This is where I come to the circumstances in which the Bill will apply. The East London and the City health authority faces a large deficit next year just to keep the existing service level going. Estimates of that deficit vary between £7 million and £20 million for the coming financial year. Whatever the figure is, it is certainly a large sum and no one to whom I have spoken in the trusts has the faintest idea how that gap can be bridged. The mood is dark in the trusts that will be on the receiving of the cuts required to bridge that deficit. I would not rule out the possibility of a trust not being able to meet its financial liabilities and running into the situation in which the Bill will apply.
  The position is much worse even than that. This is where people start to become angry. The new capitation formula for district health authorities will remove another large sum—in excess of £11 million—from the East London and the City health authority budget. That will be done under the new formula based on work conducted by York university, but significantly changed from what it recommended. It has not yet been implemented, but I understand that it has been confirmed as a direction in which the Government intend to move.
  York university was charged with providing a resource allocations formula that reflected need. It did so, but the Department of Health changed it for reasons that have still not been explained, so that the formula no longer reflects need. In the document entitled "The Resource Allocation Consequences of the New NHS Needs Formula", published in May 1995, York university states:
  "In implementing the work, the Department of Health had to make a judgment about which needs index to use for distributing funds not relating to inpatient use. In the event, they have chosen to allocate 64 per cent. of the total budget according to the acute index, 12 per cent. according to the psychiatric index, and 24 per cent. according to no needs index. The report notes that the use of no needs weighting for such a large block of services, which includes community and mental handicap services, can be challenged. It illustrates the importance of the issue by comparing the Department's preferred formula with an alternative, in which the 24 per cent. is allocated using the York acute index. It is found that this option would redirect amounts of up to 5 per cent. away from the home counties towards the inner cities."
  I am extremely concerned about the fact that that element is not there. Its absence cause serious financial problems for the trusts in east London.
  I have corresponded with the Minister about that subject, but, given the problems that are being created, I am still at a loss to understand why the Government are pursuing the use of that formula. I have repeatedly attempted to find out why a formula is being introduced that so dramatically shifts resources away from the trusts, where they are most needed, but I still have not obtained anything like a satisfactory explanation.
  The resource allocation formula is wrong. It has the opposite effect to that advertised as the Government's intention. The only explanation for its adoption that I have found is one of partisan advantage, which is disgraceful. The formula needs to be changed radically in line with York university's original proposals, so that it has the effect that the Government claimed to want.
  Given the way in which things are going now, it is entirely possible that a trust, or trusts, will find it extremely difficult to meet financial obligations in east London, Manchester, Sunderland and other areas that are particularly badly affected by the formula, and the powers

  869
  in the Bill will then need to be invoked. If there is no change in the direction in which health service funding is going, we shall very soon find ourselves in the position described in the Bill. That will be to the immense disadvantage not just of people in east London and the other areas most affected, but of the Government.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I can hardly be accused of hostility to the idea of public-private partnership. Let me declare an interest that, for the other purposes of the debate, need not be mentioned: I am chairman of Yorkshire Fund Managers, a joint venture company owned by Yorkshire Enterprise in the public sector and York Trust in the private sector. I have chaired the company for the past six years. The money from the public sector that goes into investments through Yorkshire Fund Managers is far more than matched by money from the private sector. My point is that I am very used to dealing with public-private partnership. As a Leeds Member, let me add that the Leeds initiative has gained a good reputation through its work with the private sector. Partnerships of this kind often make it possible for many things to be done that could not be done in the public sector alone.
  The Secretary of State said that people had asked about the fact that those holding his office could still decide at the last minute whether to meet health bodies' liabilities. Why has that question just come to the fore? Why was it not asked of the last Secretary of State, or of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? I think that it has arisen now for two reasons. First, there has been a considerable increase in the number of potential PFIs in the health service. That has always been a possibility, but, as the Secretary of State made clear at Question Time today, he has been signing go-ahead agreements more and more frequently. As the right hon. Gentleman accepted, however, those agreements did not have the signature that would enable the contracts to be let and things to move ahead. Before that could happen, an assurance had to be given to the providers of the money. Haste was therefore necessary. Nevertheless, I do not think that those signatures can be forthcoming until there is a clear understanding of the safeguards that exist on either side.
  Secondly, there is the concentration on health finances. Many health service trusts are in the sort of difficulty referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms): they do not know how their ends will be met, and they find that they do not receive a very sympathetic hearing from the Secretary of State.
  It would be apposite to illustrate that point from what is happening to health in Leeds. One of the three agreements that have been given the go-ahead by the Secretary of State since the Budget involves St. James's hospital in Leeds. The St. James's and Seacroft University Hospitals NHS Trust is currently in deficit. The Government's attitude to that deficit is not especially sympathetic. My questions arise naturally from that. The Minister may say that there is much difference between capital and revenue but the same considerations arise when the Government's decisions on finance seem to increase, rather than decrease, deficits.
  870
  With all the other Leeds Members, I was invited to meet Leeds community health council to discuss that issue last Friday. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) attended, with three Labour Members. According to the CHC, the St. James's trust faces a £6 million deficit this year. Not only that, but United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers Leeds general infirmary, faces a £6 million deficit this year. The health authority has a £2 million deficit. Leeds is £14 million in deficit, according to the CHC.
  Naturally, after such a meeting, one tries to check the figures. I found that the health authority was talking about a large deficit. It expected a deficit at Jimmy's of more than £1 million and a larger figure of £7 million at the Leeds general infirmary. The total figure was not so different from that of the CHC. It went further in talking about the deficits expected next year. Knowing the sums allocated by the Government for health in Leeds for the next year, it expected a deficit of nearly £5 million for St. James's and about £10 million for the LGI. Those are serious deficits.
  Everything comes back to the way in which the Government have allocated health resources. Their use of the formula, as was demonstrated by the York economists, has acted against cities. That decision has resulted in a massive transfer of funds from cities where there is real and pressing need to areas where the need is not so demonstrably large, though I believe that health service funds are needed everywhere.
  The hospital trusts and the health service in Leeds are penalised by the way in which the Government have allocated funds. In response to that, the Conservative party and Ministers have not recognised that, for Leeds as a whole, an estimated £18 million shortfall has been caused by that decision. Instead, they say that Leeds is overspending by £3.1 million. There is a difference of some £21 million between the Government's thinking and that of people who work in the health service in Leeds about the funding that the city needs. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that people would wish us to hesitate before underwriting the money that is to be allocated for such projects.
  I am told that it is hoped that the St. James's project contract will be signed in April. In those circumstances, it would be the first scheme to go ahead. I recognise that some of the facilities will benefit some of my constituents, so I hope that the scheme goes ahead. I accept that it will benefit the public of Leeds as a whole, so I wish it well. One improvement that will help my constituents is that 166 of the 246 extra beds will be available in the public sector.
  Let us consider some of the conditions that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) says should apply to public-private partnerships. First, the health service must be run by the NHS; secondly, private finance must be in partnership with public finance; thirdly, the public sector must set the priorities in the public interest.
  The St. James's scheme meets some of those conditions, but a number of important questions remain. What happened to the original scheme for the development at St. James's? I was a member of the Leeds health authority before coming to the House; I was also a member of the local council. The health authority asked me to approach the local authority because the city

  871
  council owned a great deal of land around the St. James's site. I played a minor part in the negotiations that eventually led to the transfer of 13.5 acres of land to the hospital trust.
  The PFI uses that very land. The press release that accompanied the announcement about the transfer made it clear that the local authority played a key role throughout. It was right that the local authority should make that land available. However, I remember that when I was first asked to approach the city council the primary uses for the land were intended to be for a car park and a nurses' home. The car park project still exists, but can the Minister tell me what happened to the nurses' home?
  I want the Minister to give me an assurance about the development. When the general public go to St. James's, the worst aspect for them is that it is almost impossible to park. It is sometimes an advantage to be a Member of Parliament as it enables me to park at St. James's hospital. That gives me an advantage when I want to nip in and see my constituents. The public complain bitterly about the car parking problem.
  I want to be sure that if the private sector is involved in providing the car park, the parking charges will not be such that my constituents will not be able to afford to park when they visit their relatives. I am, of course, referring to those of my constituents who can manage to get to the hospital by private transport; large numbers of them cannot do so. We do not expect the parking to be free, but the charge should not be greater than they would pay in a small city council car park outside the hospital.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having enormous difficulty relating car parking charges to the Bill, but perhaps it will all become clear in a moment.
  Mr. Gunnell: It is clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the scheme will, rightly, go ahead—yet there are still questions to ask about the financing of it.
  I shall rapidly move away from that subject and raise one or two other issues. I would like to be sure that safeguards are in place. I believe that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) got it wrong. He said that this is a Bill in which the risk is borne by the private sector, not by the public sector. It is obvious from what the Secretary of State for Health said that the public sector carries the risk. What will happen if something goes wrong with the private sector partners who are involved in this project? If the private sector partners go bust, will the Secretary of State bail them out as well?
  If there is a hospital and part of it is private and part of it is public, what conditions will apply to the staff? Morale is already at a low ebb among staff in the health service, and I would not like to think that there would be two sets of staff with different sets of conditions of service—so that some are seen to have a more privileged position.
  I am disappointed that some facilities will not be available to most of my constituents. If the private sector is involved in the scheme, it will want to get something out of it. We have to be careful to keep that well under control, to ensure that any scheme that goes ahead has a strong net benefit to the public sector and to ensure that it is genuinely carried out at a lower cost than the public sector would be paying if it were getting that same benefit by going it alone.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Today's debate has exposed the shambles that the Government have made of their attempts to privatise parts of the national health service. Successive Secretaries of State have promised us newer, bigger and better hospitals; they have promised us faster and more efficient services; and they have assured us that the Conservatives have a gleaming vision for an invigorated, market-managed, private sector-controlled national health service. However, the words of the Tories—and of the Secretary of State today—have been shown for what they are: hollow, empty promises. An endless stream of broken promises has brought the Secretary of State to the House today with this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) detailed those broken promises: Norwich, Carlisle, Swindon, Durham and others have been waiting years for new hospital buildings. They have been promised by the Government but have been continually delayed. The Secretary of State for Health spoke at the Royal College of Physicians on Tuesday 21 November 1995, and I shall quote from part of his speech:
  "Every part of the country has its own story of a new facility that has been promised and planned and then delayed, mangled and often cancelled. Too many NHS hospitals bear the scars of this haphazard process".
  Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to reflect on his words at that conference—they describe exactly the shambles that he has created with the private finance initiative in the health service. When he used those words, he claimed that he was painting a picture of public sector capital planning, but he must see that they apply fully to the situation that he has brought before the House today.
  The Secretary of State for Health and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) quoted what I said at a conference of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry earlier this year. I shall give hon. Members the benefit of the doubt because it is quite clear that the Central Office brief used only a small part of my speech in relation to what I said about PFI. I should like to put what I said at the conference in context. I said:
  "We do not disagree with PFI—how could we? It was Labour who first thought of partnerships between the public and private sector. We argued that it would enhance investment because of the long-term inability of governments to maintain capital investment".
  I then said—this is the section that was missed out in the Smith square brief:
  "But what the Conservatives are attempting is to replace capital investment with PFI. The Budget produced a 17 per cent. cut in the NHS capital programme. The Secretary of State believes that private finance will fill this gap. But, to do so, there needs to be—in one year—a massive 242 per cent. increase in private money poured into the NHS. Given the history of PFI in the Health Service, can we really expect that to happen?"
  The answer to that question is no, we cannot expect that to happen. That is what is behind it. The Government have forgotten that the private sector is not as unconnected from reality as they are. The private sector has realised what the Department has failed to acknowledge since the very first day that it set the internal market in train: that the so-called NHS reforms, and specifically the internal market, are incoherent, ill thought out, ineffectively planned and incompetently implemented.
  Today, the Secretary of State has placed before the House a Bill to revise those reforms, rewrite the past and reinterpret his role. That has been the most striking feature

  873
  of the Secretary of State's tenure at the Department. He has attempted to retell the story of the Conservative Government's fragmentation of our national health service, with himself as its saviour, although he fails to mention that he is trying to save the NHS from the Tory Government of whom he is a member.
  The Bill is not about trying to make this discredited Government look good on health by claiming to care; it is about patching up another hole in the NHS framework that the Government have created. Because there is no guarantee within the national health service framework that it will be paid, the private sector will not bail out the Government in their failed PFI policy so, in a classic piece of double-think, the Government are bailing themselves out by guaranteeing the payments that it needs to survive. It is like someone jumping out of a crashing aeroplane to keep the plane aloft and save themselves from death.
  At least the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) had the courage to say what the Bill was about; the Secretary of State avoided doing so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham rightly said that the Bill had not been thought out. The fundamental purpose is not, as the Secretary of State claimed, a minor revision of already followed practices. It is not a Bill to clear up an anomaly in law. Patching up another hole in the NHS framework means undermining many principles that the Government claim to be sacred. The Bill would fundamentally alter the basis on which the Department and the public purse take on liabilities. It would expose the public sector to as much as £5 billion of liabilities, which the Secretary of State would have no way of controlling.
  The House has been asked to pass a Bill giving the private sector the right to charge the national health service as much as £5 billion for its services, safe in the knowledge that it could bankrupt NHS trusts and still get its money back.
  Mr. Horam indicated dissent.
  Mr. Barron: I am willing to give way on that point, because the Secretary of State said earlier that trusts can borrow without his consent. It is my contention that that is at the back of this.
  The Secretary of State is asking the House to underwrite £5 billion of private sector contracts without any Minister having a say in what the contracts are for or what they contain. The Bill spends public money without public accountability. No Minister would have a right to control the mounting liabilities that the Bill might create. Ministers get no say in writing the contracts; they write the cheques only if those contracts go wrong.
  That is not what the private finance initiative in the national health service was designed for. That is not what Ministers told the House and the country that the PFI would do. When the national health service executive wrote last year to pass on the ministerial diktats on PFI, it did not say to the trusts, "Spend as much money as you like; enter any crazy contract you wish; the Government do not need to know. We shall just bail you out if you make that decision." Instead, on 20 March 1995, the NHS executive said:
  "A fundamental principle of the PFI is transfer of risk to the private sector."
  874
  This Bill does exactly the opposite. It makes contracting in the NHS under the PFI totally gilt-edged and absolutely risk free.
  The NHS guideline notes on the PFI were specific. They detailed, in a headline style, 20 ways in which to transfer risks. The notes said:
  "In many cases, the private sector should be able cost-effectively to assume the entire responsibility for the first ten risks, while taking a substantial share of the rest."
  Some of the risks identified were:
  "construction cost overruns; losses caused by late completion; costs of correcting defects; maintenance and repair costs; failed income generation schemes; failure to meet targets; losses through inefficiency and competition; higher than expected running costs; losses from unexpectedly low resale values."
  The list goes on. If this Bill is passed, that list of possible risks will be transferred not to the private sector but to the Secretary of State.
  How does the Minister who will make the winding up speech hope to reconcile the Bill's purpose with the Secretary of State's comments to the Royal College of Physicians in November last year, when he said:
  "We seek a risk-bearing partnership with the private sector which allows a proper return to the successful partner, but expects the unsuccessful partner to carry his proper share of responsibility."
  Where is the responsibility if we say that the British taxpayer, without taking a part in the decision, can write off any liabilities that are entered into? There is none.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that there is no risk, and he is absolutely right. In Carlisle, a hospital that was promised years ago has been slowed down by the PFI, and any risk that was to be taken by the private sector will now be written off. I must commend his speech. I also looked at the soccer results before I came back into the Chamber, and Rotherham United have beaten Carlisle 2–0 tonight. We will be going to Wembley on 14 April. Their team made it last year, so we are sharing in the success.
  This Bill ends risk-bearing by private contractors. Their bills are guaranteed to be paid, no matter how badly they have designed, built, financed or operated the contracted duties. Trusts could be falling over people offering to contract with them. Conceivably, a contract could be presented to build a new facility for free, a few cost overruns could be dropped in and then the contract could be laid on the Secretary of State, who would pick up the tab.
  Mr. Dorrell: That is not true.
  Mr. Barron: That is true; the right hon. Gentleman did not explain any of that when he opened the debate. This Bill is nothing more than a charter for cowboys, who could use it to milk the British taxpayer through the NHS.
  The Bill is a cynical measure. It has been designed so that, in the run-up to the general election, the Secretary of State and, perhaps, the Prime Minister can be seen walking around building sites, promising new hospitals for all. In this debate we have heard about the six years that people in Norwich have had to wait, and they still do not know if there is an agreement. Ministers know full well, as does the House, that they will be exposing us—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has just dropped down out of the Gallery.

  875
  Ministers will be exposing us to a possible £5 billion worth of debt, over which the Secretary of State will have no control at all.
  Mr. Thompson: I am conscious of the fact that I have not been present through all the debate, but references to Norwich should be accurate. The long delays in the Norwich hospital have been due to changes of mind on the siting of the hospital and have nothing to do with the PFI. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persuade members of the Labour party to stop campaigning for alternative sites, because that will cause further delay. He should concentrate on matters that he knows something about.
  Mr. Barron: I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he is using the same logic as that used by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), who argued that the Worcester hospital has been delayed for the past two years because of our amendment.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) should have been here earlier to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham read out a press release that was produced by the Department of Health in 1990. The then Secretary of State read out the press release and spoke of the great things that were to happen involving the new hospital in Norwich. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not here to hear that.
  Many people are concerned that the PFI is nothing more than a ramp for privatisation, and those concerns are heightened by the overarching secrecy that surrounds the PFI. The Secretary of State smiles, but many clinicians inside the NHS fear that the decisions that they take now will not be taken if other people, who put the concrete in the hospitals, also run and manage the services. The Secretary of State knows that that is the case because it is well documented. That is why the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will never do anything unless clinicians say that it is all right to do so. He knows that he ignored those same clinicians when they wrote to him to say that he should not reorganise the National Blood Authority.
  The Bill commits the House to supporting debt resulting from contractual obligations about which we can discover nothing. Secrecy and mystery surround every turn of the PFI process. When I recently received some information from one hospital trust about the PFI, the paper came in marked "confidential" and its recipients were sworn to secrecy about its contents. The document contained nothing more exciting than a budget for running the PFI process. That budget is commonly acknowledged to be in the region of £1 million a time.
  The greatest secrecy surrounding PFI is that nobody knows where the boundaries are. At last month's health questions I asked the Secretary of State to tell the House which services were clinical services—and therefore need not go out to PFI—and which were clinical support services. He said that the clinical and clinical support services were
  "both well-known terms of art within the health service. The scope of those terms is well defined."—[Official Report, 13 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 794.]
  He should remember that occasion as I wrote to him two days later and asked him to define the terms. I thought that the House would appreciate a list stating which
  876
  services were clinical and which were not. In view of what he had said, I thought that my request was reasonable, but one month has passed and my postbag remains singularly empty of correspondence on that matter from the Secretary of State. Perhaps he will answer the letter and tell me exactly what he means when he talks about PFI in the health service.
  Is it true that nothing is outside the scope of the PFI and literally everything is up for grabs? If so, I believe that the House will take a dim view of the privatisation of clinical services with a cast-iron guarantee of return from the Government. Clinicians are already worried that their service will be privatised and the Bill will not ease their concerns.
  Contractors are worried that they will not get paid if the Secretary of State does not change more NHS regulations. The Bill is designed to make them feel better. Contractors and private sector consortiums fear that they are being asked to sign agreements with weak and insubstantial NHS trusts.
  The Government's health service reforms have created organisations that the Secretary of State can dissolve almost at will; they lack accountability to their communities and to Parliament. The reforms have created trusts that operate without effective forms of control; they are able to borrow without the statutory approval of the Secretary of State. The private sector fears that the agreements entered into with the trusts will not be safe. Banks fear losses and the insecurity caused by the continual upheaval in the NHS brought about by the internal market.
  There are also Government fears: Ministers fear that their reforms have created a monster that they cannot control. They fear that they have built a system that stands permanently on the point of collapse, which is exactly what they have done. The Government fear the electoral annihilation that awaits them and Ministers fear voters far more than any concerns about the massive increase in public borrowing that the Bill could bring about.
  The Labour party cares about the public purse and public borrowing, which is why we shall vote for our reasoned amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said earlier, we cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill because it commits the taxpayer to signing a blank cheque for as much as £5 billion over which the Secretary of State has no control. It is a badly thought-out Bill that is being rushed through the House by a scared Government who are unable to cope with the chaos that they have created in the national health service.
  It is inconceivable that the so-called anomaly has only now come to the Department's attention. Newchurch and Co.—the official guardians of the PFI in the health service—recognised in autumn 1994 the problems created by the Government's haphazard and incoherent trust system. It questioned the implications of the dissolution of a trust and said:
  "The rights of contractors in the event of default by an NHS trust is an issue of concern to many."
  It is quite clear that the Government have resisted changing the law at least since 1994. One might think that the issue was not keeping the Secretary of State awake at night until two weeks ago when he telephoned my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. The Government have known about the anomaly for a long time and their best

  877
  effort ignores their own logic. Newchurch consultants have long recognised—as they say in their "Guide to the PFI"—that
  "In all but the most exceptional circumstances, capital sourced from the private sector is going to be more expensive than money provided by Her Majesty's Treasury".
  The Secretary of State has admitted that it is perfectly true that capital always costs more in the private sector than it does in the public sector. In his speech to the Royal College of Physicians, he said:
  I am strongly in favour of testing public and private sector solutions and adopting the approach which offers best value".
  We agree entirely with best value, but we remain unconvinced that worst value can be underwritten by the Bill and that the Department of Health does not have to take a decision about it.
  We tabled the amendment because we are concerned about the state of the national health service. We do not believe that the PFI is any substitute for the public investment that was cut by 17 per cent. in the last Budget. If the PFI is to apply to the health service, it should be on the basis that it is additional and that it will do what it is supposed to do. Dozens of hospitals that should have been built—some of them years ago—remain on the architects' drawings boards because of the Government's belief that the private sector is always the way to go. We do not believe that that is correct in all circumstances. [Interruption.]
  The Secretary of State sits there heckling with his feet up. He should start doing his job: he should come to the Dispatch Box and, instead of being flip, tell us the real consequences of the legalisation that he introduces in this place. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby tonight in order to begin to sort out the mess that the Government have made.
  9.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am somewhat disappointed by the efforts of Opposition Front-Bench Members in the debate. I am aware that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), following the rumpus surrounding her decision to send her son to an excellent school in my constituency—I have not had the opportunity to congratulate her on her excellent choice; Bromley is renowned for its hospitals as well as its education facilities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Bill is about the Health Service and not schools.
  Mr. Horam: I congratulate the hon. Lady, and I know that she will accept it in good heart. Following the rumpus surrounding her decision, she no doubt wanted to show her mettle and prove that she is not a liability to the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. McLeish: It was an excellent speech.
  Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may have thought so, but I am not sure that that is the consensus in the House. The hon. Lady was rather unwise to take such a
  878
  strident line with regard to the Bill. It is clearly a responsible measure—any objective observer would regard it as the ultimate in responsibility. It is a Bill of probity. The Bill will save the taxpayer far more money than the largesse to which the hon. Lady referred. I know that the Opposition are rather more casual in their regard to money than we are, but the Bill will save the taxpayer a great deal of money.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way. I understand the point that he is making, which relates to the national health service. Just a few weeks ago, we were informed by the Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland that, because of its confidential nature, he could not give us advance notice of a similar measure relating to Northern Ireland. He went on to say that it would be dealt with by negative resolution. Yet there is doubt as to whether it could meet the Privy Council calendar and take effect at the same time as the Bill.
  Would it be possible, even at this late stage, for the legislation to cover the national health service in Scotland and Northern Ireland, bearing it in mind that there is a wry expression on the faces of people in Dungannon, where a private finance initiative that was prepared to invest in a magnetic resonance imaging scanner was turned down?
  Mr. Horam: The commencement of the Bill is a separate matter, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that the matter is dealt with sensibly and properly at the appropriate time.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Peckham really understands the line that she has taken. Once again, she said that the PFI is about privatisation and that she is opposed to it, unlike many of her hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), until his rather dutiful retraction during his closing remarks. I was rather sorry that he had to explain away his words.
  The Opposition are not clear where they stand. We are uniformly and unilaterally united in favour of PFI, while they cannot make up their mind. They use weasel words about private and public partnerships. At least the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), in an excellent speech, made it perfectly clear that he understands what the Bill is about, and I hope that he will join us in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: No. The Opposition are unclear as to whether they are opposed to the PFI, half-heartedly in favour of it or wholly in favour of it.
  Unusually, the Opposition's health spokesmen wish to put the Department of Health in a worse position than other Departments. As was pointed out in the Financial Times this morning, the Bill seeks to create a level playing field. The Health Department is currently in a worse position than other Departments in regard to raising private money, precisely because of existing legislation.
  Ms Harman: Whose legislation?
  Mr. Horam: The legislation goes back to 1977 and 1948, so we cannot make it a party political matter.

  879
  The Bill creates a level playing field. The hon. Lady, as Opposition health spokesman, is prepared to place the Health Department in a worse position. She has not understood that—perhaps she did not read the Financial Times this morning—but she is prepared to accept it. I understand that she does not want to build more hospitals through the use of private finance in the same way as we do, but it is extraordinary that she wishes to disadvantage health in relation to other areas of spending such as education. The hon. Lady has got herself into an extraordinary position in opposing the Bill.
  Finally, the hon. Lady said that a threat hangs over the hospitals as a result of the PFI, yet she plans to vote against the Bill. If there is a threat hanging over hospitals, the Bill provides exactly the way to remove it. Again, the Opposition are in a total muddle.
  Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: No. I have very little time.
  The Opposition take a contradictory position. Members of Labour's Front-Bench team hold about three different positions, as between their leader and senior and junior health spokespersons. The Opposition accuse us of being in a shambles, but their position is a total mess.
  Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way now?
  Mr. Horam: No, because the hon. Gentleman did not take part in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. Horam: I am sorry if I cannot deal with all the points made in the debate, but there were several speeches, and a number of them were in similar vein. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made an excellent speech.
  Mr. Galbraith: No, it was not.
  Mr. Horam: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my hon. Friend, but I thought that his speech was excellent. He pointed out again that the Opposition have not committed themselves to an increase in resources. This Government committed themselves to increasing resources in real terms and fulfilled that commitment. The Opposition have yet to make any kind of commitment. The hon. Member for Peckham cannot wriggle out of her remarks about resources. It is particularly ironic, after all the fuss that Labour made after the previous general election, that the Opposition will not budge on resources. That is most telling.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury thought that there was a difference between finance leasing and an operating lease, which he wanted me to explore, and I shall do so. He conceded that much would depend on whether accountants could be made to agree. That is a rather different matter. I do not know about making lawyers or economists agree, but making accountants agree would certainly be extremely difficult.
  880
  The speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) had all the hallmarks of Victorian melodrama. I am fond of the hon. Gentleman—he certainly adds colour and life to the House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Or to the Hackney Empire.
  Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth. The hon. Gentleman's speech would have been good for the Hackney Empire. It was a Grand Guignol speech.
  The hon. Gentleman was rightly concerned about fiscal probity. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, so am I, and certainly I do not run second to the hon. Gentleman in that matter. He can be assured that the Bill enhances the fiscal probity of the PFI and the NHS.
  Ms Harman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: No, because I have not had a chance to get into my speech. I have 10 minutes left. No, nine minutes. Good heavens—that is ridiculous.
  Ms Harman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. Horam: There is also a convention that a Minister who is winding up after a seven-hour debate comprising as many speeches as we have heard today is allowed some time to reply to points made from all parts of the House. It is absurd of the hon. Lady, having made a 40-minute speech, to expect to intervene again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who could not remain for the end of the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), made points about hospitals in their constituencies. They understand my position and know that we are making good progress.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a telling and thoughtful intervention. He suggested as an alternative to the Bill an insurance premium, providing for payment in the case of default. I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands that money taken as insurance premiums from solvent trusts would reduce the money available for health care. He said that he supported the principle of the Bill, in the sense that the Government should be responsible for the way in which they conduct their business. Curiously, he went on to say that he could not support this particular Bill because he did not feel that we would test value for money in a suitable way. He is wrong. The whole point of the PFI is that it tests value for money against the public alternatives.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: No, I am not giving way because I have only six minutes left.
  Public will be tested against private, and if private finance does not win, public finance will be used. That is the exact test that the hon. Member for Southwark and

  881
  Bermondsey wanted. He made an important point about how far the Bill would fill in the hole created by the withdrawal of capital funding from the public sector. He is right to point out, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed, that there is some withdrawal, for the year starting in April, from the capital fund for hospital provision. But there will be a huge increase of £1.3 billion in current spending, and even the hon. Gentleman must admit that all that money comes from the public sector.
  We have been able to increase spending by so much—for nurses, doctors and health care—simply because we have made a much smaller reduction in capital funding. That small reduction has been partly covered by receipts from land sales, as well as by PFI investment, and there will be a huge overall increase in spending next year and a tiny decrease in public funding for the capital sector. The hon. Gentleman's point is, therefore, not really relevant.
  I return to the speeches of Opposition Front Benchers. [Interruption.] Good heavens, I have only five minutes left. The hon. Member for Peckham claimed to make five points in her speech. I counted only four, so five was an exaggeration. She said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had broken all the promises on hospitals. I know of no major delays in projects currently being implemented since the PFI arrangements were put in hand.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: No. Carlisle hospital is a good example of a hospital that has been built in stages. Stage 1 was completed in 1975, and nothing has been done since then. That is the reality of hospital building before the PFI—delay after delay, and stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3. Under the PFI, there will be no delay and we can build a hospital in one go. Nor should there be any delay, because the PFI exercise can be done in the same time and in the same way as going through a full business case. There would be no reason for any delay, and there has been no serious delay as a result of the PFI.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) made it clear in his intervention that Norwich hospital had suffered no delay as a result of the PFI. The hon. Member for Rother Valley mentioned North Durham hospital. The PFI has caused no delay for North Durham hospital.
  Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: No, I have only three minutes left.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that the Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for Peckham also made the tired claim that the PFI was a Trojan horse for privatisation. She had to go as far as Stonehaven in Scotland to produce one example that looks remotely like privatisation. Even that example is not privatisation of the clinical sector, but a perfectly sensible arrangement that the clinicians support.
  882
  The hon. Lady went on to try to link privatisation with market testing. Again, the Opposition are entirely wrong. Market testing has saved the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds. A billion pounds in total has been saved by the health service by contracting out services, and that is a good example of the private sector bringing its skills to bear to improve the performance of health care.
  The hon. Lady's final point—her coup de grâce—amounted to a ludicrous claim that this all means a blank cheque for £5 billion—as if there were no external financing limit, no quarterly reporting, no balance between receipt and revenue. The fact is that the Opposition's reasoned amendment is a nonsensical sham. It is wholly without substance, and it should be defeated.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 295.

  Division No. 75]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

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

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blunkett, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Byers, Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Garrett, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chidgey, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hall, Mike

  Corston, Jean

  Hanson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  883

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudie, George

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mullin, Chris

  Home Robertson, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hood, Jimmy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoyle, Doug

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Illsley, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Ingram, Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Janner, Greville

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rendel, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rogers, Allan

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

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Litherland, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Simpson, Alan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McKelvey, William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maddock, Diana

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marek, Dr John

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Touhig, Don

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Martlew, Eric

  Turner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michael, Alun

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  884

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Ms Janet Anderson and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

  Wise, Audrey

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evennett, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Faber, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Booth, Hartley

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gale, Roger

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gallie, Phil

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gamier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butcher, John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cran, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  885

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smyth, The Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thomason, Roy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  886

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (RESIDUAL LIABILITIES) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  That the draft Deregulation (Special Hours Certificates) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
  That the draft Deregulation (Friendly Societies Act 1992) Order, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  Electricity Pricing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: At this time of night, matters of interest and concern in relation to the privatised utilities are familiar territory to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House. The regulators of those utilities often feature largely in such discussions. They include Offer, the Office of Electricity Regulation, Ofgas, the Office of Gas Supply and Ofwat, the Office of Water Services. We have not yet had Offrail or Offmilk, which were threatened at one stage. If the weekend recommendation that the monarchy might be privatised were accepted, we might find ourselves discussing Offcrown or, indeed, Offhead.
  Despite the time of night, it is important to recognise that there is an issue of national significance here, although I shall also consider it in relation to the part of the south-west that I represent. There is consumer representation, which is extremely important, but the committees that represent the consumer increasingly find that their concerns are not being fully reflected in the way in which the industry is regulated. That applies to all the privatised utilities.
  To a large extent, that is due to the buck-passing between the Minister and regulator in each of the respective sectors. The powers that each has and their inter-relationship is as important as the regulators' statutory responsibility. My colleagues in the south-west and I had a meeting today with professor Stephen Littlechild, regulator of the electricity industry. That clarified the borders of his responsibilities vis à vis the Minister.
  Clearly, unbridled competition between regional electricity companies, the so-called RECs, is pre-supposed because that is what privatisation is all about. Equally, that competition pre-supposes elimination of the cross subsidies that were a feature of those utilities.
  The National Grid, however, is a different matter: it is a national monopoly. It would indeed be a political decision to insist on full distance-related charges, especially if such charges now arise disproportionately. At the time of privatisation, assurances were given that the grid would remain a national service. Compare this privatisation with, for instance, the privatisation of British Telecom. What if, in those circumstances, that entire national service had been subjected to a straight distance-related charge? There would have been uproar by now, especially in the more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom.
  The chairman of the South West electricity consumers committee has drawn the attention of hon. Members representing my region to a new development. He writes:
  "The Office of Electricity Regulation has recently unveiled proposals to increase the electricity transmission charges imposed by the National Grid Company on electricity supplied to the South West. As you will know, customers in the South West are already penalised by a charging structure which takes account of the distance that power has to be transmitted from the generating stations,
  888
  predominantly in the North of England, to the consumer. It is now proposed that the costs of losses on the transmission system be recouped in the same manner.
  The existing charging structure already means that electricity customers in the South West pay more than almost anywhere else in the country. These latest proposals could mean further increases of up to 2 per cent., with Devon and Cornwall being particularly badly affected."
  I emphasise that, although the chairman referred to the south-west, the principle will apply throughout the country, and the more peripheral areas furthest away from the centres of generating capacity will suffer similarly.
  An excellent overview by the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries shows that the typical South Western Electricity domestic bill for 1994–95, after rebates, was £303.66—the highest in England. I know that Conservative Members representing my region will share my fear that, having already reached the highest point, we are likely to be pushed even further away from the norm.
  There are, of course, many factors at work, and the future is very unclear. The CRI brief shows that a number of influences may affect future prices: National Grid rebates, distribution price controls and the sale of the nuclear elements of the generating industry—and, indeed, the extent to which that may or may not be postponed, and its effect on the nuclear levy. There are also the reductions in overall generating prices as a result of new contracts; and who knows what competition will do?
  I do not want to overestimate the extent to which the latest development to which our attention has been drawn will alter the overall level of electricity costs in the south-west, or, indeed, other areas that are similarly affected. One thing is certain, however: the cumulative disadvantage is likely to increase rather than decrease. That was recognised today—by complete coincidence, as far as I am aware. In Northern Ireland, it has now been acknowledged that the discrepancy requires the award of a £60 million grant. Some of us in other parts of the United Kingdom may feel that our case is almost as strong. All areas of this kind—the south-west, Wales and Northern Ireland being the most obvious—tend to contain more small industrial firms, so they cannot even benefit from the high-volume tariffs that are comparatively common elsewhere.
  Along with my south-west Liberal Democrat colleagues who are here this evening, and who attended our meeting with the regulator this afternoon, I have some special concerns. If the differential is allowed to increase, even discriminating within the South Western Electricity area—more specifically, for each National Grid zone within that area—regions such as Cornwall and Devon will be hit particularly hard. That will add to the existing calamitous water and other household costs in an area where, after the initial experiment with gas competition, we are bound to face higher prices than other parts of the country.
  I need hardly remind the House that the south-west has high unemployment and low household incomes. Cornwall is especially badly affected by both. The cumulative effect of that series of differentials is disastrous.
  There are wider implications for similar parts of the country. Professor Littlechild agrees with that but has also said:

  889
  "there are important advantages in more cost-reflective transmission charges. Better pricing signals will encourage investment in new generation plant in areas where it is needed, like the south-west. This would also increase energy efficiency, reduce the need for new transmission lines and benefit the local economy."
  The House will immediately realise that those signals will be effective only if they are aimed at the appropriate decision makers. That is a sine qua non. Secondly, they must be sufficiently powerful to offset other economic factors pulling in the opposite direction. No one will decide on the basis of the so-called signals to invest in new generating capacity in an area such as Cornwall without other factors being brought into play. There is evidence that the signals will, in the present circumstances, fail on both counts.
  If the signals are imposed on the consumer, they will have no impact on the decision makers. The generators take investment decisions, not the consumers. In the past, consumers have had little or no impact on generating capacity. It should be remembered that in the far south-west, the Central Electricity Generating Board closed down power stations at Hayle, Plymouth and Yelland against local opposition. Many of us felt that employment, economic potential and spreading energy capacity around the country were important objectives that those decisions went against.
  The decision makers ignored the effect on local people then, so why should they listen to local consumers now? It is ironic that the CEGB took those decisions on the specific ground that transmission charges from elsewhere in the United Kingdom were likely to be so low that the closures would be cheaper than continuing local generation, which they argued would be too expensive. Some hon. Members here tonight will recall those decisions being made against local opposition.
  Offer and the RECs cannot have it both ways. If they argue, as they appear to, that the costs will be only marginal, clearly they will have only a marginal impact.
  Our discussions with the regulator this afternoon appeared to move towards a possible solution. That is why at the outset of my speech, I emphasised the difference between the responsibilities of the regulator and those of Ministers. It appears that the only way to achieve the possible remedy is by ministerial direction. If we could find a mechanism to ensure that the decision makers—the generators—have to bear the extra cost of inefficient transmission over long distances in a way that safeguards the position of consumers in vulnerable areas such as the south-west, there is clearly some prospect for success. That would apply perhaps to Wales, and for all I know, to Northern Ireland.
  Professor Littlechild acknowledged the force of that argument in respect of both tests—its effect on decision makers and its economic impact—and that that course would be preferable. It was clear from our discussions with him this afternoon that if extra burdens on south-west consumers were imposed, they would be damaging. However, it was equally clear that those burdens are by no means automatic. They do not have to follow from the decision to try to cut out all cross-subsidies but it will need Government intervention to prevent them doing so.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Perhaps I can help to persuade the Minister of the case. He represents the
  890
  Department of Trade and Industry, which spends considerable sums trying to support business in the south-west. There is little point in that money being spent if it is cancelled out by the extra costs on business from electricity charges. Therefore, our suggestion could be a net saving to the Department as it would not have to spend money overcoming problems that it is itself creating.
  Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that the disincentive to incoming investment and, perhaps, to the natural growth of companies already resident in the region is extremely important to avoid if we are to achieve a more economically successful region and, indeed, save the hon. Gentleman and his Department money in the long run. It is precisely this sort of signal, as the regulator calls it, that can discourage people from bringing their investment in new businesses and jobs to a region such as ours, which so desperately needs them.
  That is why we lay such emphasis on what is otherwise seen as a comparatively marginal difference between our region and other regions. For example, if a business is contemplating moving either to Scotland, where electricity costs are comparatively low, or to the south-west, which may be comparable in other ways, it is yet another disincentive to come west and an incentive to go north. As Conservative Members as well as my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been able to establish in recent weeks, there have been huge incentives to take people north of the border. This could be yet another factor.
  Left to themselves, in the present regime the National Grid Company, the regional electricity companies and Professor Littlechild seem almost bound to end all cross-subsidy. In those circumstances, the consumers in those areas furthest from the power stations will pay full distance-related charges. It need not be so. If Ministers so choose, they could instruct that the differentials were borne by the generators, not the end consumer—be it business, commercial, industrial or domestic. Not only would that obviously benefit all those consumers—and, as I have just said, in the wider economic sense be a huge benefit to the south-west and similar areas—it would also encourage a revival of generating capacity in those areas.
  I fear that without that ministerial intervention the far south-west will be destined to suffer the worst penalties of privatisation in every direction. I therefore plead with the Minister at least to take seriously the suggestion made today, as a result of our discussions with the regulator, and to look at a different mechanism that could avoid this disaster.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on raising this subject for tonight's debate and on giving me this opportunity to say a few words in response. I hope that he will understand if I do not follow him down the side track of saying what an excellent record the Government have on producing inward investment in the south-west.
  I want to say a few words about the background to electricity privatisation and the way in which electricity prices are determined under the regulatory regime that the Government put in place at the time of privatisation. I shall then come to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised of regional variations in electricity prices.

  891
  A key point about the Government's policy for the restructuring and privatisation of the electricity industry was that
  "Decisions about the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of customers."
  The privatisation framework was also guided by a number of further principles: for example, that competition is the best guarantee of the customer's interests; that regulation should be designed to promote competition, oversee prices and protect the customer's interests in areas where natural monopoly will remain; that security and safety of supply must be maintained; and that customers should be given new rights, not safeguards.
  The Government's reorganisation of the electricity industry before privatisation provided the framework for giving effect to those principles. The old Central Electricity Generating Board was divided into three competing generators—National Power, PowerGen and Nuclear Electric. The National Grid was transferred to the ownership of the 12 regional electricity companies, and it was responsible for electricity transmission and the independent central dispatch of electricity generating plant. Regional electricity companies are facing increasing competition in their authorised areas as their franchise markets are progressively reduced.
  An important part of the electricity privatisation framework has been the creation of an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Director General of Electricity Supply and to the conversations and the meetings that he has had with him. That man is the head of the Office of Electricity Regulation and his job is to promote competition and to constrain the activities of the remaining monopolies and dominant suppliers.
  This framework has brought significant benefits to the electricity consumer. For example, since privatisation prices have fallen, domestic prices have fallen by 7 per cent. in real terms—excluding VAT—and industrial prices have fallen by 10 per cent. in real terms. There have been some genuine new rights for customers, in the form of the ability of customers outside the RECs' franchise markets—which are being progressively reduced, and which will be ended completely by 1998—to shop around and select a supplier of their choice. There are guaranteed standards of performance of supply for tariff customers, set by the DGES, covering aspects such as the need to keep appointments on the date specified and fixed amounts of compensation for customers in the event that the guaranteed standards are not met.
  There are overall performance standards that the RECs are to meet, such as the minimum percentage of supplies to be reconnected following faults within three hours and within 24 hours. There are new codes of practice to cover matters such as how to handle customer complaints, the efficient use of electricity, services for the elderly and disabled, and arrangements for paying bills. Customers have the opportunity to complain to an independent regulator, the DGES, and for those complaints to be investigated by the Office of Electricity Regulation.
  In 1990, the RECs' transitional franchise market—the market within which the RECs were the monopoly suppliers—comprised sites taking 1 MW or less, and in April 1994 it was reduced to sites taking 100 kW or less. In April 1998—in just over two years' time—the franchise will be ended, and all customers, including domestic customers, will have a choice of supplier. Within the franchise market, electricity prices are controlled by the DGES.
  892
  The price of electricity is made up of four elements: first, the wholesale purchase cost of the electricity to the REC, which the REC may pass through to the retail price; secondly, the cost of transmitting the electricity from the generating station, through the National Grid's transmission system, to the REC's system of wires; thirdly, the cost of distributing the electricity over the REC's system, which accounts for some 25 per cent. of the electricity price, and has been subject to price controls that have required real price decreases in this component of the final electricity price; and, fourthly, the fossil fuel levy and value added tax.
  The final cost of the electricity used by the hon. Gentleman's constituents reflects all four of these elements. Even taking VAT into account, real domestic electricity prices are no higher than they were before privatisation—since privatisation, they have fallen by about 7 per cent., excluding VAT.
  There are further decreases to come. As we all know, domestic customers of the RECs have received a one-off discount of £50 on their electricity bills under the terms of the flotation of the National Grid in December. The tightening of the distribution price control, announced by the Director General of Electricity Supply in July 1995, will bring a 3 per cent. reduction in real electricity prices as from 1 April. The reduction in the rate of the fossil fuel levy at the time of privatisation of the nuclear generating stations will bring another further significant reduction in electricity prices later this year.
  The main point raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall concerned regional variations in electricity prices. In the context of the elements that I have just enumerated, that means the distribution and transmission price controls; and there is a link with transmission losses, so I shall say a few words about that.
  There is nothing too surprising about the existence of regional variations in prices; indeed, regional price variations are to be found in commodities separate from electricity. They can be found in such things as tea and houses, and they are a natural and unsurprising consequence of underlying regional differences in market conditions. There is not too much that anyone can do about the geographical and demographic conditions that push up supply costs to the more remote and sparsely populated regions of the isles. Against the background set by the differences, however, it is important that the severity of regulation should take into account, case by case, the extent of the scope for cost reduction in different areas.
  Consequently, the director general sets the distribution price control separately for each of the 12 RECs. The revised controls that he announced last summer mean that the aggregate required reduction in the distribution charges by South Western Electricity over the period 1994–95 to 1999–2000 will be nearly one third in real terms—to be precise, 30 per cent. Some other RECs have had more severe reductions while others have had smaller ones.
  At present, electricity transmission losses are charged on a uniform basis throughout the country. However, annual rates for transmission losses have increased by about £30 million in the past few years and the director general has said that customers would get a better deal if charges for transmission were more cost-reflective—that is, if they related more closely to the typical distances that

  893
  electricity must travel from generator to customer. That is part of the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall made.
  A more cost-reflective basis of charging would bring reductions in charges to some, but the reverse side of the coin, fairly obviously, is that Professor Littlechild has acknowledged that it would mean increases to others. He said, however, that any such increases in transmission charges should not exceed 12 per cent. of the electricity price in any region and would be more than offset by the reduction in charges to those customers resulting from the implementation of the new distribution price controls.
  Professor Littlechild has commented—this returns to one of the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall made—that customers alone should not bear those charges. He said:
  "Generators should also share the charge for transmission losses, since the most important single need is to inform decisions on the location of new generation".
  Within government, that is a matter for the director general. He has called on the electricity pool to make proposals by the end of the month. The director general has suggested that if the pool considers that it cannot deal adequately with transmission losses by that time, it should transfer responsibility to the National Grid so that necessary arrangements can be put into effect in good time. That brings me, as night follows day, to the subject of transmission price control.
  The original transmission price control covered the period from 1990 to 1993, and restrained the National Grid's average regulated revenue per kilowatt to increase by no more than the rate of inflation. In 1992, the Director General of Electricity Supply reviewed that control, and tightened it to "RPI minus 3" for three years as from April 1993. That means that the National Grid's average regulated revenue per kilowatt has had to reduce in real terms by 3 per cent. a year for three years. Those effects are all reflected in the present electricity price level, and they will bring a further decrease in transmission charges as from this April.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Page: I do not mind briefly giving way, but if I cannot finish my speech it will be on the hon. Gentleman's head.
  Mr. Harvey: The Minister is referring to overall reductions in transmissions. He said that other commodities show a price differential between regions, as though that were an act of God over which there was no control. Does he accept that, because the transmission part of the electricity industry remains a monopoly, it is a matter of policy whether there is economic costing, differentiating by region, or whether the costs are shared equally, as they have been until now? That is a matter of policy that might be controlled.
  Mr. Page: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but as I said at the outset, the director general has been given specific tasks to achieve and—in being given those tasks—he has also been given a certain independence. If someone is given independence, he or she is expected to exercise it. Therefore the arguments to the director general have to be advanced; much of what I have said tonight shows that so much of the decision making will be in the director general's hands.
  In November, the DGES began to consider the revised transmission price control to apply from 1 April 1997. He issued a consultation paper and asked for comments by the end of January. I understand that the DGES hopes to announce the revised control later this year and that it will take effect from 1 April 1997. That is a matter for the DGES. An important aspect of the regulatory system—introduced at the time of privatisation—is that the DGES is independent. His statutory duties include protecting the interests of the customer and promoting efficiency and economy on the part of the electricity licensees.
  The hon. Gentleman has already expressed his concerns fairly forcefully, and I am sure that he will state them in writing to the DGES. I shall draw the contents of the debate to the attention of the DGES and flag up the hon. Gentleman's concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has also made his views known to me. I advise the hon. Member for North Cornwall to lobby the director general enthusiastically so that he may take into account those views when he conducts the review of electricity transmission charges.
  Question put and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Ghana
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding Ghana's recent human rights record. [19843]

  Mr. Hanley
  We welcome the improvements that have taken place in the human rights situation in Ghana in recent years. There is respect for the constitution, the rule of law applies, there is press freedom and a high level of personal liberty. Political activity is permitted and further multi-party elections are due in December 1996.

  Burundi
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the meeting between the Minister for Overseas Development and the Foreign Minister of Burundi on 22 February. [19842]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Bakevyumusaya briefed my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker on the success of his Government's recent "Pacification Campaign". She assured the Minister of our continued support for international efforts to promote dialogue and reconciliation in Burundi and the neighbouring region.

  Equatorial Guinea
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the elections in Equatorial Guinea; and what assessment he has made of the withdrawal of opposition candidates from the presidential elections. [19841]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regret that the presidential elections which took place in Equatorial Guinea on 25 February were not conducted in a free and fair manner. We urge the Government and all political parties to work towards the establishment of democracy.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20096]
  500
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's departments sponsor the following advisory non-departmental public bodies:

  Insolvency Rules Committee

  County Court Rule Committee

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Land Registration Rule Committee

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  Council on Tribunals

  Law Commission

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax (NI)

  Advisory Committees on JPs in Northern Ireland

  Advisory Committees on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (NI)

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  Advisory Committees on JPs in England (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) and Wales

  Judicial Studies Board

  Honorary Investment Advisory Committee

  All but the last seven have a statutory base.

  (a) None is under a statutory requirement to publish its advice to Government;

  (b) The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, the Law Commission and the Council of Tribunals are all required by statute to make annual reports to the Lord Chancellor. While there is no statutory requirement on the Advisory Council on Public Records to submit an annual report, there is a requirement that any report by it to the Lord Chancellor should be included in the Public Record Office's own annual report, for which there is a statutory requirement; and

  (c) all of the annual reports in (b) are laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor, under a statutory requirement.

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI) is required to consider the Law Society's annual report on legal aid in Northern Ireland and the Lord Chancellor is required to lay before Parliament a copy of any comments or recommendations made by the committee.

  The other bodies do not publish advice or produce annual reports.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily.[20113]
  501
  Mr. Evans
  For the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department, the answers are as follows:

  (a) none

  (b) The following advisory bodies have carried out public consultation exercises:

  the Supreme Court Rule Committee

  the County Court Rule Committee

  the Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  the Law Commission

  the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct the Judicial Studies Board.

  (c) the Supreme Court Rule Committee, the County Court Rule Committee and the Family Proceedings Rule Committee regularly consult with individuals and organisations which have a professional or commercial interest in the amendment of rules of court.

  The Law Commission does conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests but this is encompassed within

  (b) above.

  (d) none

  (e) none

  (f) none

  There is no statutory requirement for these bodies in these areas.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20470]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a recent survey within the Department has shown that 93.8 per cent. of all invoices are paid within agreed terms, or within 30 days of receipt of invoice, where no such terms exist.

SCOTLAND

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants under(a) section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 and (b) other legislation have been awarded by the Scottish Office for railway infrastructure in Scotland between 1975 and 1995 in (i) the Strathclyde passenger transport executive area and (b) the rest of Scotland.[19301]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Number of projects

  Grant awarded (outturn prices) £ million

  Section 56 grants

  Within the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive (SPTE) area

  5

  103.3

  Outwith SPTE area

  2

  11.0

  502

  Number of projects

  Grant awarded (outturn prices) £ million

  Other legislation

  Freight facilities grants within SPTE area

  14

  3.1

  Freight facilities grants outwith SPTE area

  18

  4.7

  Grants for repairs to listed buildings outwith SPTE area

  1

  0.2

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was spent on(a) fixed rail infrastructure in Scotland, (b) investment in new railways, upgrading and re-opening of railways, new and improved stations and new signalling and (c) maintenance of track, signalling, structures and stations in Scotland at outturn prices in each year from 1975 to 1995. [19305]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available. British Rail keeps only limited historic information on investment on a geographical basis.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures govern applications for railway rolling stock to be used in the highlands objective 1 area where the stock is owned by a leasing company and leased to a train operating company. [19310]

  Mr. Kynoch
  All applications for European regional development fund support must be submitted by a public agency and a minimum level of matching funding must be included within the funding package. Any grant support paid is channelled through the sponsoring public agency.

  In addition, all applications must be eligible under the terms of the single programme document and must also contribute to the outputs anticipated for the programme. applications for mobile infrastructure —that is that which could be readily moved outwith the programme area—would not normally be eligible.

  Squirrels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to whether extending the use of warfarin to control grey squirrels is in breach of the Grey Squirrels and Warfarin Order 1973; and if he will make a statement. [19983]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Extending the use of warfarin to control grey squirrels was approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and is not in breach of the Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order 1973.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies into the expansion of grey squirrel distribution have been conducted by his Department. [19161]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: The Forestry Commission has undertaken a survey of grey squirrel distribution every year since 1958. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology's biological records centre also maintains records of the location of grey squirrels.
  503
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of grey squirrel damage to broadleaf trees in each year for the last five years. [19160]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: Damage by grey squirrels can kill broadleaf trees, reduce their growth rate, degrade their timber and allow diseases into them. It is difficult to estimate the total cost of this damage as the loss in value of the timber can be calculated only after the trees have been felled, and any assessment of the impact on growth rate and mortality can be only approximate. Recent estimates have suggested that the annual cost of the damage is between £3 million and £20 million.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he had(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of secondary poisoning caused from the use of warfarin for squirrel control. [19162]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: We have undertaken several research studies into the risk of secondary poisoning of non-target species by warfarin, and the Forestry Commission commissioned a review of these studies which was carried out by the Central Science Laboratory.

  Forestry Commission (Legal Advisers)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 267, if he will name the firm of solicitors which has been appointed to the Forestry Commission with effect from 1 April. [20389]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Tods Murray, WS.

  Flooding
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects of flooding in the Grampian area in September 1995; and if he will make a statement. [20641]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government have decided to trigger the Bellwin scheme for Grampian in respect of the flooding experienced in that area in September 1995. We have already held discussions with local authorities in the area, but will now be writing to all local authorities concerned, inviting them to submit formal claims in respect of expenditure which they believe to be eligible under the terms of the scheme.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the expenditure incurred by Renfrew district council as a result of flooding in December 1994; and if he will make a statement. [20640]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I am glad to announce that we have decided that Renfrew district council is eligible for a payment of £167,558 under the Bellwin scheme. The scheme was triggered following the flooding for severe weather sustained in Strathclyde in December 1994.

  The district council's claim for assistance has been subject to detailed scrutiny. The payment relates mainly to expenditure incurred in connection with the temporary evacuation of people from their flooded homes and the
  504
  provision of temporary accommodation, and the hire of plant, including drying and heating equipment, to make homes habitable again.

  Forest Enterprise
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the results of the environmental appraisal conducted under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" published by the Department of the Environment on the framework document for the new Forest Enterprise agency. [19549]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The framework document for Forest Enterprise will set out its aims, responsibilities and status. It is therefore not an appropriate subject for environmental appraisal under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment".

DEFENCE

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the location and circumstances of the accident to(a) a Royal Navy Lynx on 23 February 1994, (b) a Sea Harrier on 16 April 1994, (c) a Royal Navy Sea King on 25 March 1994, (d) a Royal Navy Sea Harrier on 16 April 1994, (e) an RAF VC10 on 5 May 1994, (f) an RAF Tornado on 20 May 1994, (g) an RAF Nimrod on 30 July 1994, (h) a Royal Navy Lynx on 5 September 1994, (i) a Royal Navy Sea King on 12 October 1994 and (j) an Army Air Corps Gazelle on 11 November 1994. [19627]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) We have no record of an accident involving a Royal Navy Lynx on 23 February 1994.

  (b) A Royal Navy Sea Harrier was lost to warring party action on an operational mission over Bosnia-Herzegovina on 16 April 1994. The crew of one ejected safely.

  (c) A Royal Navy Sea King was conducting a medical evacuation from a ship off Lizard point, Cornwall, on 25 March 1994. The stern of the ship yawed rapidly, making contact with the winch wire which was transferring a diver to the vessel. The wire became entangled and snapped, causing the diver to fall approximately 15 ft to the ship's deck, sustaining minor injuries.

  (d) An RAF steward fell from an open door of an RAF VC 10 parked at Dulles airport, Washington on 5 May 1994, sustaining injuries to his elbow, hip and shoulder.

  (e) An RAF Tornado ejector seat fired accidentally during servicing at Boscombe down on 20 May 1994, injuring the arm and leg of an RAF tradesman.

  (f) The wingtip of an RAF Nimrod struck a parked vehicle at RAF Fairford on 30 July 1994 whilst taxi-ing, causing injury to the civilian occupant of the vehicle.

  (g) A Royal Navy Lynx was undergoing maintenance at RNAS Portland on 5 September 1994. While descending from an aircraft servicing platform, a maintenance rating slipped and fell approximately 5 ft, injuring a foot.

  (h) A Royal Marine landed heavily, injuring a leg, during a rapid roping serial from a RN Sea King at RAF Marham on 12 October 1994.

  (i) An Army Air Corps Gazelle belonging to the School of Army Aviation was being used to conduct hover exercises at Middle Wallop airfield on 11 November 1994. During the flight, a student was given limited control of the hovering

  505
  aircraft. He made a control error and the instructor was unable to stabilise the helicopter before it made contact with the ground; the occupants sustained minor injuries.

  Royal Squadron
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current number and aircraft type flown by 32 Squadron, the Royal Squadron; and if he will list by rank the number of personnel currently attached to the squadron. [19816]

  Mr. Soames
  Number 32 (the Royal) Squadron is comprised of the following aircraft:

  Aircraft type

  Number

  BAe 146 100 Series

  3

  BAe 125 700 Series

  6

  BAe 125 600 Series

  11

  Wessex HCC Mk 4

  2

  Gazelle HT MK3

  22

  1 +1 in use reserve.

  2 +2 in use reserve.

  The Gazelle helicopters will shortly be replaced by two contractor owned-military operated Twin Squirrel AS 355 F1 helicopters.

  The following personnel are assigned to the squadron:

  Rank

  Number

  Wing Commander

  1

  Squadron Leader

  18

  Lieutenant Commander (RN)

  2

  Flight Lieutenant

  29

  Master Air Crew

  2

  Sergeant

  10

  Corporal

  18

  Senior Aircraftsman

  18

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the royal family who are entitled to use flights on(a) official and (b) private travel in aircraft of 32 squadron, the Royal Squadron. [19774]

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the royal family are entitled to make flights in aircraft of No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron as follows

  (a) Official travel

  The Queen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Queen Mother

  The Prince of Wales

  The Princess of Wales

  The Duke of York

  The Prince Edward

  The Princess Royal

  The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

  Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

  The Duke of Gloucester

  The Duke of Kent

  The Duchess of Kent

  Prince Michael of Kent

  506

  Princess Michael of Kent

  Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy

  (b) Private travel

  The Queen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Queen Mother

  The Prince of Wales

  The Princess of Wales

  Members of the royal family are entitled to use aircraft of the No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron at the discretion of Her Majesty the Queen.

  In accordance with the wishes of Her Majesty the Queen, arrangements agreed by my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Secretary of State for Defence, were introduced on 1 April 1995 under which the costs of private flights in aircraft of No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron by members of the royal family would be reimbursed to the MOD.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in order of precedence those members of the royal family who may request a flight by 32 Squadron, the Royal Squadron, to be charged to the privy purse; and if he will make a statement. [19635]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department meets the costs of all official travel in aircraft of No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron by entitled members of the royal family. Since the introduction of arrangements on 1 April 1995, costs for the private use of No. 32 (the Royal) Squadron by the five entitled members of the royal family are met from their private funds. The sources of private funds used to pay for such private travel is a matter for the royal households.

  Services Clothing Manufacture
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the clothing requirements of the armed forces is manufactured in the United Kingdom. [19626]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DCTA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Roycroft to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 12 March 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the percentage of the clothing requirements of the armed forces that are manufactured in the UK, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency.In Financial Year 1994/95 the MOD placed over 90%, by value, of its Clothing & Textiles orders with British suppliers. The figure for Financial Year 1995/96 is likely to be similar. Therefore, under 10% of MOD Clothing & Textiles purchases have been from overseas suppliers. However, an increasing number of UK companies are subcontracting or sourcing from overseas because of the advantages in setting up and labour costs.When tendering, companies are required to provide details of any manufacturing source outside the tenderer's premises i.e. the nature of any subcontract work, including the name and address of the contractor who will carry it out. The minimum percentage of UK manufacture is 10% of the order quantity which must be manufactured at the prime contractor's ISO 9000 series certificated site. Apart from this requirement there is no obligation for contractors to provide further detail of the percentage of work to be

  507
  performed overseas, indeed with contractors subject to various factors e.g. exchange rates, extended lines of supply and possible offshore labour problems, percentages of manufacture in UK/offshore can often change during the duration of the contract/enabling arrangement.You will appreciate therefore that I cannot provide you with an accurate percentage of overseas manufacture. I hope that the foregoing is helpful but, if you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact me.

  Regimental Establishment Levels
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Army regiments are currently at their full establishment level; and what is the percentage shortfall in each of the other regiments. [19817]

  Mr. Soames
  The 9th/12th Lancers, The Corps of Royal Engineers, the Highlanders, the Kings Regiment, The Duke of Wellington's Regiment, The Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps are currently manned to their full establishment of soldiers. The percentage surplus or shortfall of soldiers against establishment on 1 February 1996 is shown for each regular army regiment and corps in the table. Officer manning is generally satisfactory with a small surplus.

  Regiment/Corps

  Percentage shortfall/ surplus

  The Household Cavalry

  -9.1

  The Queen's Dragoon Guards

  -5.0

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

  -6.9

  The Royal Dragoon Guards

  -11.5

  The Queen's Royal Hussars

  -11.8

  The 9th/12th Lancers

  +44.3

  The King's Royal Hussars

  -10.5

  The Light Dragoons

  -1.8

  The Queen's Royal Lancers

  -2.8

  1st Royal Tank Regiment

  -9.0

  2nd Royal Tank Regiment

  -3.5

  The Royal Regiment of Artillery

  -7.7

  Corps of Royal Engineers

  +.2

  The Royal Corps of Signals

  -4.7>

  The Grenadier Guards

  -2.3

  The Coldstream Guards

  -2.1

  The Scots Guards

  -9.5

  The Irish Guards

  -5.3

  The Welsh Guards

  -8.5

  The Royal Scots

  -10.7

  The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  -13.8

  The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  -7.0

  The Black Watch

  -12.3

  The Highlanders

  +2.3

  The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  -16.6

  The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  -13.6

  The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  -5.9

  The Royal Anglian Regiment

  -7.6

  The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  -7.1

  The King's Regiment

  +4.5

  The Prince of Wales' s Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  -7.2

  The Green Howards

  -4.8

  The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  -7.1

  The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  +4.2

  The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  -1.6

  The Cheshire Regiment

  -7.8

  The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  -7.6

  The Royal Regiment of Wales

  -11.9

  The Gloucester Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  +3.0

  The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  –1.1

  The Staffordshire Regiment

  -7.2

  508

  Regiment/Corps

  Percentage shortfall/ surplus

  The Light Infantry

  -7.6

  The Royal Green Jackets

  -16.0

  The Royal Irish Regiment

  -10.2

  The Parachute Regiment

  -18.0

  The Brigade of Gurkhas

  -1.2

  The Army Air Corps

  -8.3

  The Royal Logistic Corps

  -2.6

  The Royal Army Medical Corps

  -1.3

  Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  -1.7

  The Adjutant General's Corps

  -2.5

  The Intelligence Corps

  -5.6

  Corps of Army Musicians

  -.1

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  +.5

  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) arms and (b) arms-related contracts were approved by Her Majesty's Government with the Argentine Government between the years 1979 and 1982. [19811]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence is not the licensing authority for exports and does not otherwise normally approve contracts between exporters and overseas customers. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set out details of contracts for the supply of defence equipment to Argentina in the relevant period,Official Report, 6 March 1996, column 228.

  51 Squadron, Royal Air Force
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the role and function of 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force; what are its annual running costs; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken; [19960]

  (2) how many aircraft are currently assigned to 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force; what plans there are to increase the number of aircraft assigned to this squadron; what are the estimated costs of such an increase; and from which subheads of which votes these funds will be taken; [19959]

  (3) on what date 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force, was established. [19961]

  (4) what is the current assignment of 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force. [19958]

  Mr. Soames
  No. 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force, was reformed on 21 August 1958 to operate electronic reconnaissance aircraft. The squadron currently comprises two Nimrod R aircraft; a Nimrod MR2 from storage is being converted to replace a third which was lost on 16 May 1995.

  The squadron's forecast running costs for the current financial year are approximately £7.1 million, and are included in Air Officer Commander-in-Chief Strike Command's top level budget, vote 1 section D1.

  There are no plans to increase the squadron's complement of three aircraft.
  509

  Overseas Training Deployments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what maximum authorised levels of(a) deployed RAF personnel and (b) deployed RAF combat aircraft are being requested of the Canadian authorities under the new multinational memorandum of understanding governing training activities at Canadian forces base, Goose bay, Labrador. [19745]

  Mr. Soames
  The new memorandum of understanding concerning allied military activity at Goose bay specifies that an annual maximum of 18,000 training sorties, of which no more than 15,000 may be at low level, can be flown by all the allied users. The MOU does not specify a maximum level of deployed RAF personnel or deployed RAF combat aircraft and does not require the RAF to request such levels.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for Royal Air Force training deployments to United States marine corps air station Yuma, Arizona. [19637]

  Mr. Soames
  No formal invitations have been received from the United States authorities for future RAF participation in exercises at Marine Corps air station, Yuma.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many investigations were carried out by the Royal Air Force police flying complaints flight in 1994; and how many breaches of low flying regulations were confirmed by these investigations. [19639]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF police flying complaints flight carried out 632 investigations in 1994 which confirmed 70 breaches of low flying regulations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the changes made to the minimum weather requirements for visual low flying since 1989. [19636]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my noble Friend, the Viscount Cranborne, wrote to him on 29 November 1993, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. There have been no changes to minimum weather requirements for visual low flying since that date.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the nationalities of military aircraft booked into(a) area 5E and (b) area 3A of the night low flying system between 1800 hours and 1930 hours GMT on 6 January 1995. [19746]

  Mr. Soames
  No military aircraft were booked into night low flying sectors 3A and 5E between the times stated on 6 January 1995.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received about low flying aircraft in the vicinity of Darlington on 12 July 1994. [19640]

  Mr. Soames
  None.
  510

  Warton Airfield
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights originated from, or bound for, Warton airfield were recorded by the military air traffic control authorities between 1700 hours and 2000 hours GMT on 6 January 1995. [19748]

  Mr. Soames
  Military air traffic control records of this type are normally retained for a maximum of three months. Consequently, the information requested is no longer available.

  Tornado Accident
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the board of inquiry into the accident to a Tornado GR 1A on 1 September 1994 obtained evidence on the routes flown by other aircraft booked to fly in low flying area 14 at the time of the accident. [19754]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. This was considered fully by the board of inquiry which concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that another aircraft was involved in the accident.

  Exercise Arid Thunder
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent, nature and purpose of Royal Air Force participation in Exercise Arid Thunder in December 1995. [19638]

  Mr. Soames
  Exercise Arid Thunder 1995–96 was divided into four two-week periods. RAF participation was as follows:

  Unit

  Dates

  13 Squadron

  3–17 November 1995

  14 Squadron

  20 November–1 December 1995

  617 Squadron

  3–15 December 1995

  17 Squadron

  19 February–1 March 1996

  Eight Tornado aircraft and 122 personnel were deployed from each squadron. The purpose of the exercise was to provide training by expending life-expired BL755 munitions.

  F-117 Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many F-117 aircraft were present in the United Kingdom on 6 January 1995. [19749]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Munitions Dumps
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list(a) the exact location of munitions dumps in the English channel south of the Thames and the Severn estuaries, (b) the exact composition of the materials which were put into those dumps, (c) the ports which were used for that dumping, (d) the periods during which those ports were used for dumping, (e) the ships used for such dumping and (f) all monitoring of the dump sites for environment and safety which has taken place since 1966 or is currently taking place; [20182]
  511
  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacies of the registration of munitions dump sites in the English channel. [20183]

  Mr. Soames
  Records of the total tonnages, ports and vessels involved in munitions disposal are not available. From surviving records it has been established that the following general areas, shown more extensively on hydrographic charts, were designated, although not necessarily used, as conventional explosive dumping grounds in the English channel before 1973:

  Area

  Position

  Hurd Deep

  49 30 00 N—3 34 00 W

  St. Catherines Deep

  50 34 00 N—1 12 00 W

  NW of Alderney

  2 sites

  49 50 00 N—2 18 00 W

  NW of Alderney

  49 47 00 N—2 17 00 W

  SSW of Guernsey

  49 18 00 N—2 42 00 W

  Whitesand Bay, Plymouth

  50 18 45 N—4 16 00W

  Current scientific advice indicates that dump sites present no significant risk to safety, human health or the marine environment if left undisturbed.

  Fast Jet Training
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average period for completion of fast jet training. [20226]

  Mr. Soames
  A qualified fast jet pilot needs to complete successfully three main stages of fast jet training before being deployed to an operational flying squadron. The average length of time it currently takes for a new pilot to progress through the flying training stages is 259 weeks which is longer than usual due to a backlog of pilots in training. From the end of 1996, however, the backlog should have been resolved and the current planned cycle for a new pilot starting training now, will be on average 109 weeks. This includes six weeks of breaks between courses and is dependent on pilot capability, weather and the operational conversion aircraft or course required.

  The main stages, aircraft employed and the minimum flying hours/weeks are as follows:

  Main stages

  Aircraft employed

  Minimum flying hours/weeks

  Basic flying training

  Tucano

  120 hours/42 weeks

  Advanced training and tactics

  Hawk

  103 hours/33 weeks

  Operational conversion

  Various fast jets

  188–129 hours/22 weeks

  1 Average.

  Military Training Assistance (Ghana)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military training assistance provided to Ghana in the last five years; how many British personnel were involved; and how many Ghanaian(a) military and (b) police officials have visited the United Kingdom for training since 1990. [19840]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom has provided a number of small teams of United Kingdom military personnel to carry out training of Ghanaian military 512
  personnel in the last five years and a team of several British officers has also assisted at the Ghanaian staff college, one of whom remains. Since 1990, several Ghanaian officers have visited the UK for training. Precise details of military assistance are regarded as confidential between Governments. I understand that 10 Ghanaian police officials have visited the UK for training since 1990.

  Bulford Camp Primary Schools
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rents or charges he makes to Wiltshire county council in respect of services or land occupied by(a) Haig county primary school and (b) Kiwi county primary school, in Bulford camp, Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [20244]

  Mr. Soames
  The following charges have been raised over the last 12 months:

  £

  Haig county primary school

  Land for playground—rental charge

  1130.00

  Sewer connection charge

  120.00

  Water connection charge

  120.00

  Water

  1,390.00

  Electric

  1,011.00

  Kiwi county primary school

  Sewer connection charge

  120.00

  Water connection charge

  120.00

  Water

  559.00

  Electric

  1,984.00

  1 Fixed annual charge.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to Wiltshire county council opposing the proposed closure of Haig county primary school in Bulford camp, Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [20243]

  Mr. Soames
  Wiltshire county council has discussed the proposed closure of Haig county primary school with the local military authorities and has consulted with parents, governors and staff. The outcome of these consultations will be considered by the county council's education committee and any proposal to change the current provision will be published by way of public notices. Objections can be registered at this stage and these will be passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for adjudication.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the service families with children at Haig county primary school in Bulford Camp, Wiltshire, have a parent currently serving in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [20247]

  Mr. Soames
  Twelve per cent. of service families with children at Haig primary school have a parent currently serving in Bosnia.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to his Department of security attributable to(a) Haig county primary school and (b) Kiwi county primary school in Bulford camp, Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [20245]
  513
  Mr. Soames
  There is no identifiable extra cost to my Department attributable to security arrangements for either school.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of(a) the married quarters population and (b) the numbers of nursery and school-age children dwelling in the married quarters and within designated catchments of (i) Haig county primary school, and (ii) Kiwi county primary school in Bulford camp, Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [20246]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated population of the married quarters estates at Bulford camp is 2,564. Within the designated catchment area of Haig county primary school, there are an estimated 49 nursery and 94 school-aged children living in the married quarters. The corresponding figures for the Kiwi county primary school catchment area are estimated to be 118 nursery and 188 school-aged children.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the advisory non-departmental pubic bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20102]

  Mr. Soames
  The independent board of visitors was established in accordance with the Imprisonment and Detention (Army) Rules 1979 for military corrective training centres. This is the only one of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department which has a statutory base. I regret that in my earlier answer to the hon. Member,Official Report, 27 April 1995, column 695, I erroneously stated that the Dartmoor steering group and working party also had a statutory base.

  There is no statutory requirement for any of MOD's advisory non-departmental public bodies to publish their advice to Government, publish an annual report or lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  The annual reports of the Dartmoor steering group and working party and the review board for Government contracts are placed in the Library of the House on a voluntary basis.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20472]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Bills Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from T. R. Thurgate to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 12 March 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March 1996, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, if no date was
  514
  specified, older than 28 days. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Bills Agency I have been asked to reply.
  As the Defence Bills Agency pays approximately 3 million bills each year, the information requested is only available at disproportionate cost. However, we do monitor our payment performance closely in terms of volume of bills. So far this financial year over 99.9% of bills have been paid within 30 days fo receipt at our office in Liverpool. We also measure our performance against the higher departmental standard of payment within 11 days, we have achieved an average of 97% so far this financial year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the timetable for finalising his Department's proposed waste classification system will be coincident with that for implementation of the landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [19138]

  Mr. Clappison
  The landfill tax will be introduced on 1 October this year, as my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confirmed in his Budget speech last autumn. Those wastes subject to the lower rate of tax have been the subject of extensive consultation by HM Customs and Excise and will be set out in a Treasury order. A draft of the proposed contents of the order will be circulated in April. The third stage of the consultation on the national waste classification scheme will be published next month by my Department in conjunction with the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. This will involve the introduction of the scheme on a non-statutory basis from April, so that its use can be fully assessed.

  Water Companies (Pay)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by, and how many served on the boards of,(a) Anglian Water, (b) North West Water, (c) Northumbrian Water Ltd., (d) Severn Trent, (e) Southern Water Services, (f) South West, (g) Thames Water, (h) Welsh Water, (i) Wessex Water and (j) Yorkshire Water; and what was the total remuneration paid to those on the board of each company, in the final year before each was privatised. [19430]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is given in the prospectus for the water share offers published in November 1989. A copy of the prospectus is available in the Library.

  Purchase Grant Scheme
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to consult on his proposals to exempt small rural settlements from the purchase grant scheme; and if he will make a statement. [19763]

  Mr. Curry
  We have today issued a consultation paper asking for comments from local authorities, housing associations, rural groups and other interested parties on how we propose to exempt small rural settlements in England from the new purchase grant scheme.
  515
  As we announced in the rural White Paper, neither the voluntary purchase grant scheme for associations' existing properties, nor the planned statutory scheme for future publicly-funded developments will apply to rural villages with a population of 3,000 or fewer inhabitants. This is because we recognise the particular difficulty there can be in such areas in building or finding replacement properties for rent.

  The Housing Bill currently before Parliament would give the Secretary of State the power to designate by order rural areas where the new right would not arise.

  The consultation paper sets out the way we propose to implement this designation in England. It invites comments on our general approach, and on the rural detailed proposals for 15 broadly representative counties and areas. We will also consult on the remaining areas of England, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult on proposals for Wales in due course.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Vote Office, and in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies of supplementary papers providing further details of proposed designations for each individual county or area, including copies of any maps needed, have also been placed in both Libraries.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of part B of the Building Regulations to take account of(a) modern building methods and construction techniques and (b) requirements of current fire safety needs; and if he will make a statement. [19747]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department keeps the Building Regulations and associated technical guidance under review with issues such as these very much in mind.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend part B of the Building Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [19751]

  Mr. Clappison
  At its meeting on 22 February, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee considered a revised draft of the technical guidance approved in support of part B of the Building Regulations. I expect to be able to put these proposals out for public consultation later this year.

  National Spring Clean
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to support the national spring clean from 12 to 21 April. [19952]

  Mr. Clappison
  National spring clean is funded from the Department of the Environment's grant to the Tidy Britain Group. The Tidy Britain Group has received a total grant of £2,897,000 in 1995–96.

  The Department also intends to support publicity events and other activities connected with the national spring clean campaign.
  516

  Deceased Council Tax Payers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about notices issued by local authorities following the death of a council tax payer; [20069]

  (2) if he will issue guidance to local authorities in respect of the appropriate tone to be employed in notices issued following the death of a council tax payer. [20068]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am aware of only one such representation.

  The form of each notice is for individual local authorities to determine. However, we have issued guidance to authorities suggesting that notices issued in these circumstances should be accompanied by a sympathetic letter to the bereaved.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 102, what sanctions are available to the Environment Agency in cases where a company has failed to implement solutions to pollution problems within the time scale agreed with the agency or with a predecessor authority. [20350]

  Mr. Clappison
  Section 13 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, through the Environment Act of 1995, provides for the Environment Agency to serve a company with an enforcement notice if it has failed to comply with the conditions of an authorisation issued under the 1990 Act. Section 23 also makes it an offence to operate a process without complying with all the conditions of such an authorisation.

  Cement Kilns
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 101, at what intervals chief inspector's guidance notes are reviewed; and when the chief inspector will next issue guidance notes on meeting the requirements of the hazardous waste incineration directive. [20349]

  Mr. Clappison
  Chief inspector's guidance notes on processes subject to integrated pollution control are reviewed every four years, or sooner where developments in pollution abatement techniques or technology warrant it.

  Revisions to chief inspector's guidance notes for the waste disposal and recycling sector are due to be published in May/June 1996; revised guidance dealing with incineration processes is expected in June, and will give guidance on meeting the requirements of the hazardous waste incineration directive.

  Thoresby Colliery (Accident)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Director General of the Health and Safety Commission about the fatal accident that took place at Thoresby colliery, Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [18956]
  517
  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. I refer to my written answer of 19 October 1995,Official Report, columns 307–08, about the fatal accident at Thoresby colliery on 12 October 1995. I hope to be in a position to write to the hon. Gentleman later this month following the conclusion of the Health and Safety Executive's investigation and the inquest into the miner's death.

  Child Employees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) injuries and (b) deaths occurred in the last year for which figures are available among employed children where the source of injury or death was a direct consequence of employment. [19369]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For 1994–95, the provisional figures for fatal and other injuries to employees under 16 years reported to the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division and local authorities are:

  Severity of injury

  Number of injuries1

  Fatal

  1

  Non-fatal2

  39

  Total

  40

  1 Includes trainees/pupils on work experience.

  2 Includes major and over three-day injuries as defined by the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Education Authority Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, columns 153–54, on the total amounts of grants provided to local authorities responsible for education if he will provide the figures separately for each local authority.[20278]
  518
  Mr. Curry
  I have arranged for the figures for all local authorities to be placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily.[20100]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1995". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 27 April 1995, Official Report, column 616. The information contained in that answer remains correct.

  None of the advisory bodies has a statutory requirement to publish an annual report or lay it before Parliament. The following advisory NDPBs publish annual reports on a voluntary basis: the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Local Government Commission for England and the Property Advisory Group, the report for 1995 being its first.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20478]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is available only at disproportionate cost.
  519

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to end subsidies to the arms export trade; and if he will make a statement. [17915]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It has been long-standing Government policy for the Export Credits Guarantee Department to support defence exports on no more favourable terms than apply to civil sales. The ECGD operates to a financial break-even objective on its new business, applying the same prudent underwriting criteria, cover policy and premium rates to civil and defence business.

  Although there is the possibility of a subsidy arising from fixed rate export finance supported by the ECGD, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of international negotiations to progressively eliminate the potential for such subsidy. The minimum interest rates supported under FREF are determined by international agreements, and fixed by reference to market levels.

  While defence-related exports are not covered by these agreements, the ECGD applies the same rules in financing support for defence sales as for civil sales.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all cases since 1987 in which his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19467]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department does not purchase raw computer capacity as such. Instead, a range of computer-related services is procured from a variety of sources. Following decentralisation of related budget responsibilities to individual management units, central records do not cover all uses of such services. In addition, the costs of those services reflect not only the computer capacity required but the specialist manpower and communication facilities needed to deliver them.

  The majority of these services are currently delivered to my Department by Hoskyns plc following its success in a market test in 1994. The total value of services delivered during the first year of the contract was £6.7 million. Prior to the market test these services were delivered from in-house capacity. In addition, my Department has used the Treasury's Chessington Computer Centre for staff pay and pensions since 1980 at a current annual cost of £354,000.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) where inward investment seminars and conferences were held by his Department in 1995; and what was the range of numbers participating; [19939]

  (2) how many inward investment seminars or conferences were held by his Department in 1995 and at
  520
  what cost; and what cost was incurred in renting the venues. [19946]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  For the financial year 1995–96, my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau has been involved with the following seminars and conferences for inward investors:

  Where held

  Overall costs

  Cost of venue £

  Number of participants

  Copenhagen, Denmark

  Seminar sponsored by Den Danske Bank

  Nil

  15

  Munich

  £25,000

  864.8

  130

  Stuttgart

  Sponsored by BW Bank

  Nil

  50

  Seminar with IHK Frankfurt

  Arranged by Chamber of Commerce

  Nil

  20

  Osaka, Japan

  1£80,075

  14,678

  153

  Aomori, Japan

  1£1,952

  11,861

  35

  Akita, Japan

  1£1,623

  11,664

  36

  Morioka, Japan

  1£2,415

  12,254

  46

  Yamagata, Japan

  1£1,709

  11,407

  24

  Taipei Computer Association, Taiwan

  2£140

  Nil

  6

  1 £1 = 140 Yen.

  2 £1 = 40 NT$.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, columns 135–36, if he will give powers to shareholders of public companies to enable them to receive a detailed explanation of the reasons for a creditor company's refusal to initiate an action for bankruptcy in instances where the debt is in excess of £50,000 and where the debtor is an hon. Member. [19936]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In general, shareholders of companies delegate to their board to management decisions such as the enforcement of debts owed to the company. A power for shareholders to intervene in these specific circumstances would not be appropriate.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are in place to verify the credentials of private companies who tender for Government contracts. [20189]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A copy of the chapters from my Department's procurement manual providing guidance on the procedures for verifying the credentials of private companies which tender for DTI contracts has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Reform Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the criteria used for establishing areas eligible for regional assistance in the United Kingdom are identical with those used in other EU countries; and if he will make a statement. [20009]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The criteria for eligibility for grants under the regional objectives of the EC structural fund are, in general terms, identical. They are contained in Council regulation (EEC) 2052/99 as amended by 2081/93 (OJ L193 of 31 July 1993). The criteria for designating areas eligible for support under the regional
  521
  selective assistance scheme are based on travel-to-work areas and are not therefore identical to those used in other EU countries.

  Compliance Unit
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what cases are currently being pursued by his Department's single market compliance unit.[20221]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The single market compliance unit is currently pursuing about 70 cases. The details of these are commercially confidential.

  Manufactured Exports (Germany)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to investigate the extent of German non-tariff barriers against the import of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom. [20220]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department has issued studies on the operation of the single market in public procurement, the chemicals sector and in respect of standards, testing and certification. The Department also analyses the complaints to its single market compliance unit. The unit received 13 complaints in 1995 alleging specific unjustified German non-tariff barriers to trade in manufactured goods. The Department has taken all of these up with the European Commission, the German Government, or both.

  Fuel Suppliers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received(a) during 1995 and (b) since 1 January alleging that certain fuel suppliers are (i) practising selective price support in favour of company-owned sites and (ii) discriminating against independent dealers through allegedly uncompetitive contracts; what representations have urged him to refer this matter to the Director General of Fair Trading; and if he will make a statement. [20214]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has received a number of representations on behalf of independent retailers during 1995 and this year regarding the pricing policies of fuel suppliers. These have been brought to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading, who has responsibility for investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour or abuse of monopoly power. The Office of Fair Trading investigated these complaints, which included some concerned with Esso's pilot pricewatch campaign, and concluded that action under competition legislation was not appropriate. However, the Office of Fair Trading will continue to monitor the market.

  Plutonium Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will specify the origin of the reactor, the isotopic composition, point of departure, mode of transport and final 522
  end use of the United Kingdom plutonium exported to the United States of America between 1967 and 1988 in the form of fuel elements. [20268]

  Mr. Page
  Plutonium exported from the United Kingdom to the United States of America under civil bilateral agreements was used for fuel elements as part of the US civil programme. All such exports were, where applicable, subject to the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Plutonium exported for civil purposes was derived from UK reactors. Given the period over which these exports were made, information relating to the isotopic composition and mode of transport could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cost Accounting
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the proposal of the Accounting Standards Board for abandonment of historical cost accounting. [20269]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The draft of the proposed "Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting" published for public comment by the Accounting Standards Board does not propose an abandonment of historical cost accounting. Present practice already incorporates certain current values. The draft statement of principles makes clear the ASB's belief that, as markets develop, current values will become increasingly relevant and reliable. The ASB therefore encourages the development of practice in that direction but has stressed that it will not move faster on this subject than the business community will accept.

  I welcome the publication of the draft statement as apart of the ASB's valuable work on improving the quality of financial reporting. I hope that the business community will consider what the statement has to say on the numerous important issues it addresses and will take the opportunity to contribute to the debate on them.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total number of workers in receipt of the national minimum wage in(a) the USA, (b) Japan. (c) Australia, (d) Canada, (e) New Zealand and (f) each EU state; and what percentage this represents of the total work force in employment in (a) to (f).[20318]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government do not collect this information, and believe that it could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the number of claims referred in each of the last three years to(a) the commission for the rights of trade union members and (b) the commission for protection against unlawful industrial action; and in each case how many were successful; [203371

  (2) what was the expenditure of (a) the commission for the rights of trade union members and (b) the commission for protection against unlawful industrial action in each of the last three years; [20342]
  523
  (3) if he will list (a) the numbers employed and (b) the expenditure on administration by (i) the commission for the rights of trade union members and (ii) the commission for protection against unlawful industrial action in the last three years; [20341]

  (4) if he will list (a) the hours of work per week and (b) the remuneration of (i) the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members and (ii) the Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action. [20340]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no commission for the rights of trade union members nor commission for protection against unlawful industrial action. One person, Mrs. Gill Rowlands, currently, occupies both the office of Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, CRTUM, and the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action, CPAUIA. The CPAUIA was established in August 1993. The number of formal applications made to the CRTUM and the CPAUIA, and the numbers supported by the commissioners in each year are as follows.

  CRTUM

  CPAUIA

  Total applications supported

  Total applications supported

  1993–941

  47

  8

  1

  -

  1994–95

  57

  12

  -

  -

  1995–962

  85

  9

  3

  -

  1 For the CPAUIA, August 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  2 1 April 1995 to 8 March 1996.

  The expenditure of each of the commissioners for each of the last three years has been as follows:

  CRTUM £

  CPAUIA £

  1993–941

  274,941

  85,880

  1994–95

  293,716

  104,543

  1995–9622

  287,888

  86,218

  Five staff have provided support for both Commissioners for the last three years.

  1 For the CPAUIA, August 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  2 1 April 1995 to 8 March 1996.

  Expenditure on administration (comprising staff salaries, accommodation and fuel and utilities) has been:

  CRTUM £

  CPAUIA £

  1993–941

  100,910

  24,342

  1994–95

  100,555

  50,277

  1995–961

  109,885

  50,709

  1 For the CPAUIA, August 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  2 1 April 1995 to 8 March 1996.

  The CRTUM is contracted to work two days per week, 7.5 hours each day and, for 1995–96, her remuneration, comprising salary, social security and pensions costs, will amount to £36,194. The CPAUIA is contracted to work one day, 7.5 hours per week and, for 1995–96, her remuneration will amount to £18,079.
  524

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20474]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 24 November 1995,Official Report, column 417. Information on the basis requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Green Claims
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of the National Consumer Council report on green claims; [19982]

  (2) what plans he has to implement the National Consumer Council's recommendations on green claims and to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. [19981]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The report referred to was jointly commissioned from the National Consumer Council by my Department and the Department of the Environment. The Government will be responding to the report as soon as possible following its publication.

  AEA Technology plc
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the chairmanship and composition of the boards of AEA Technology plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. [20718]

  Mr. Lang
  AEA Technology plc will be vested with the property, rights and liabilities of the commercial activities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on 31 March. On that date, Sir Anthony Cleaver will relinquish his appointment as chairman of the authority and become chairman of AEA Technology plc. Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton will succeed Sir Anthony as chairman of the authority. Sir Kenneth's leadership qualities and his extensive experience of nuclear planning and procurement will be of particular value in this role.

  In addition to Sir Anthony, the board of AEA Technology plc will comprise the following:

  Executive directors

  Dr. Peter Watson (Chief Executive)

  Mr. Ray Proctor

  Mr. Mike Watson

  Non-executive directors

  Dr. Brian Eyre (Deputy Chairman)

  Professor Mike Brady

  Mr. Gordon Campbell

  Mr. Colin Sharman

  Mrs. Steve Shirley

  525
  The non-executive directors currently serve as members of UKAEA and will relinquish their appointment at vesting.

  From 31 March, the members of the authority will be:

  Chairman:

  Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton

  Executive members:

  Dr. Derek Pooley (Chief Executive)

  Mr. John Baxter

  Mr. James Bretherton

  Dr. Roy Nelson

  Mr. Paul White

  Non-executive members:

  Mr. Chris Appleton

  Dr. Rex Gaisford

  Mr. Trevor Harrison

  Mr. Neil Hirst

  Mr. Clive Pickford

  All currently serve as members of the management board of UKAEA Government division.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications of the late filing of annual accounts of Capita Managed Services Ltd. for the suitability of that company as the sole bidder for the Companies House central inquiry unit and postal search section in Cardiff. [19783]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: According to Companies House records, the most recent accounts, for the period to 31 December 1994, were filed by the deadline. Accounts for 1995 do not have to be filed until 31 October 1996.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia,(b)private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19910]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: Those activities within my Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding are as follows:

  (a) Facilities management consortia:

  (i) None

  (ii) None

  (b) Private Finance Initiative:

  (i) None

  (ii) None

  (c) Management Buyout Consortia:

  (i) None

  (ii) None

  (d) Contractorisation schemes:

  (i) Companies House (Cardiff)

  Central Enquiry Unit and Postal

  Search Services

  526

  (ii) None

  (e) Market Testing schemes:

  (i) None

  (ii) None

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of the implications of the resignation of the chairman of Capita Managed Services Ltd. on the suitability of Capita Managed Services as the sole bidder of the central inquiry unit and postal search sections of Companies House;[19781]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of the resignation of John Jasper as chairman of Capita Managed Services Ltd. for that company's status as the sole bidder for the central inquiry unit and postal search sections at Companies House, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement. [19784]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answers 8 March 1996]: I have not yet taken a decision about whether to award a contract for the running of the central enquiry unit and postal search accounts service at Companies House, Cardiff. Mr. Jasper has no current involvement in the running of Capita Managed Services Ltd.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received an interim report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the activities of suppliers of electrical goods; and if he will make a statement. [20083]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: I have not received an interim report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC has until 31 October 1996 to report.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report on the retail pricing of certain types of electrical goods; and if he will make a statement. [20007]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 14 February that he has given the Monopolies and Mergers Commission until 31 October 1996 to report on the monopolies references on the supply of eight categories of electrical goods.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of his Department in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19797]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  527

  1 January 1991

  1 January 1992

  1 January 1993

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1995

  1 January 1996

  Science group

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scientific Officer

  11

  6

  8

  7

  7

  8

  Higher Scientific Officer

  16

  14

  22

  23

  23

  22

  Higher Scientific Officer (Development)

  1

  2

  7

  10

  10

  9

  Senior Scientific Officer

  38

  28

  34

  33

  33

  33

  Professional and technical group

  Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  13

  12

  13

  18

  13

  13

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  30

  32

  35

  38

  37

  32

  Totals

  111

  98

  122

  132

  126

  118

  The figures exclude executive agencies and regional offices, and those specialist grades which are unique to this Department.

  Birds Eye Wall's
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what factors will be taken into account in assessing the public interest in arriving at the decision over proceedings against Birds Eye Wall's under section 93B of the Fair Trading Act 1973 for knowingly or recklessly providing misleading information to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its recent inquiry into ice cream exclusivity; [19582]

  (2) when he expects to make a decision on proceedings against Birds Eye Wall's under section 93B of the Fair Trading Act for knowingly or recklessly providing misleading information to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its recent inquiry into ice cream exclusivity. [19581]

  (3) what account will be taken of the integrity of the processes of competitive regulation in the decision on proceedings against Birds Eye Wall's under section 93B of the Fair Trading Act 1973 for knowingly or recklessly providing misleading information to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its recent inquiry into ice cream exclusivity. [19583]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: It is not the practice of the Department to comment publicly on individual cases under consideration. Any decisions which need to be taken will be announced in due course.

  Computer Disc Theft
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responsibility he had for the decision not to prosecute the person against whom sufficient evidence had been accumulated to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for alleged theft of a DTI computer disk and blackmail. [20052]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: No DTI computer disk has been stolen in the incident referred to by the hon. Member. The President had no responsibility for the decision not to prosecute for the misuse of information held by the Treasury Solicitor.
  528

  Insolvency Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to public funds of the proposed contracting out of insolvency casework as broken down into(a) the pre-feasibility study, (b) the feasibility study, (c) the 1995 advertisements, (d) the handling of the 149 expressions of interest, (e) the requirements scoping document, (f) the sifting of the 91 initial proposals, (g) the negotiations with 34 companies, (h) the invitation to tender, (i) the identification of three tenders offering value for money and (j) the stringent technical and financial evaluation; and what was the total cost of this exercise. [19584]

  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The cost of the pre-feasibility and feasibility studies into the scope for private sector involvement in the work of official receivers was £65,251 and £61,500 —excluding VAT—respectively.

  The costs of the contracting out exercise undertaken by the Insolvency Service, in the period beginning October 1994 when the Government announced their intention to pursue the preferred option identified by the then consultants to the announcement on 28 February 1996 of the outcome was £2,288,594. This figure could be broken down into the areas specified only at disproportionate cost.

  As a result of the drive for greater efficiency implemented during the period of the contracting-out exercise, the service will achieve a reduction this financial year of 3 per cent. in the unit costs of bankruptcy and company liquidations.

  I expect to announce shortly the targets which I have set for the Insolvency Service in 1996–97, which will look to the service to delivery substantial further savings above that level.

  Structural Funds
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if there will be a revision of the areas eligible for grant from the EU structural funds under objective 2. [9379]

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 January 1996, Official Report, co. 293]:

  On 8 March, the Commission announced that member states' total populations eligible for objective 2 grant will remain unchanged.
  529
  This is welcome news for the United Kingdom, preserving our national share of the total population in objective 2 areas, which is the largest of all member states. It follows strong representations made by the Government to the Commission and reflects the consensus at the meeting of EC Ministers in Madrid on 1 December in favour of complete continuity between the current list and the new list of areas.

  The Commission is, however, inviting member states, if they wish, to make in the near future proposals for marginal additions to the list, to be balanced by proposed deletions of areas of equal population. I have considered carefully the question of proposing marginal changes to the list of UK objective 2 areas.

  The programmes for current eligible areas have been running for less than 18 months. This is insufficient time to address the long-term structural problems which led to their designation under objective 2. I have had some representations in favour of additions to the list, and some in favour of no change, but only one proposing deletions, in a different part of the country from the proposer. I therefore do not intend to put forward any proposals for changes in the UK list. The list of eligible British areas will therefore remain unchanged.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19429]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 16 February 1996,Official Report, column 728.

  These figures as a percentage are:

  1992–93: 0.19 per cent.

  1993–94: 0.13 per cent.

  1994–95: 0.19 per cent.

  1995–96: 0.62 per cent.

  There is no record of any letters from hon. Members being transferred to executive agencies.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19459]

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no contracts of this nature since 1987.
  530

  Sudan
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the subject of violations of human rights in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [20223]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We deplore the continual and widespread violations of human rights in the Sudan. Together with our EU partners, we will seek to ensure continued monitoring of the situation by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the evidence of violations of human rights in Sudan presented by Baroness Cox and John Eibner of Christian Solidarity International; and if he will make a statement. [20222]

  Mr. Hanley
  We read the reports of Baroness Cox and John Eibner with interest and concern. They contain many disturbing first-hand accounts of human rights abuses. We expect the Government of Sudan to investigate them fully and take appropriate action when allegations are well founded. Investigating human rights abuses in Sudan is not easy, but it is important to establish the facts. We look to the Government of Sudan to allow human rights monitors, including the UN Special Rapporteur, free access to all areas of Sudan.

  British Council
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the British Council now has to withdraw facilities and services previously available to its staff. [21227]

  Mr. Hanley
  The provision of facilities and services to its staff is principally a matter for the British Council, but I am not aware of any proposed changes.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards widening the remit of The Hague war crimes court to include actions in Kosova; and if he will make a statement. [20277]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia's mandate covers the whole territory of the former Yugoslavia.

  China (Missile Testing)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what occasions the testing of missiles by China near Taiwan's main ports has been raised in the European Union; and if he will make a statement; [20119]

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government will protest at the Government of China's decision to have missile tests close to Taiwan on 11 to 15 March; and if he will make a statement. [20118]
  531
  Mr. Hanley
  The European Union partners issued the following statement in Rome on 8 March:"The EU deeply regret the firing by the People's Republic of China of missiles, beginning in the morning of March 8th, into test zones in the Taiwan Straits. The planned week-long exercise could lead to further tension in the region and increase the possibility of any miscalculation eventually leading to confrontation.
  The EU, recalling the pledge always made by the PRC to stick to its fundamental policy on the Taiwan issue, which is to seek a peaceful solution, call on the PRC to refrain from activities which could have negative effects on the security of the entire region and urge early resumption of the cross-Strait talks".

  We continue to monitor this difficult situation very closely.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20099]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer that the then Minister for State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, (Mr. Goodlad) gave to the hon. Member on 27 April 1995,Official Report, columns 707–08.

  Mr. Imshah Syed
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Mr. Imshah Syed was refused leave to board a plane for Pakistan on 6 February to attend the Human Rights International General Assembly in London. [20120]

  Mr. Hanley
  We assume that the question relates to Mr. Syed Imdad Shah. We understand that Mr. Shah was refused leave to board a flight from Islamabad on 6 March on the instructions of the Pakistani authorities.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the United Nations draft declaration on human rights defenders and its inclusion on the agenda of the 52nd session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. [20369]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have participated actively in the working group preparing this declaration and regret that it has not been possible to reach agreement yet on a text. The UN Commission at its forthcoming session will consider a recommendation that the working group chairman should prepare a consolidated and refined text for further consideration by the group.

  EU Member States (Territories)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 260, if he will list for
  532
  each EU member state those territories for whose external relations it is responsible; and in each case if the territory is (a) a member of the EU and (b) elects representatives to the European Parliament. [20396]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information requested is as follows:

  Territory

  Part of EU?

  Vote in EP elections?

  Denmark

  Faroe Islands

  No

  No

  Greenland

  No (since 1982)

  No

  France

  (The French Overseas Departments are an integral part of France and so are part of the EU and take part in elections to the European Parliament)

  French Polynesia

  No

  No

  New Caledonia

  No

  No

  Wallis and Futuna

  No

  No

  St. Pierre and Miquelon

  No

  No

  Mayotte

  No

  No

  Netherlands

  The Netherlands Antilles

  No

  No

  Aruba

  No

  No

  Portugal

  (The Azores and Madeira are autonomous regions of metropolitan Portugal and so are part of the EU and take part in elections to the European Parliament)

  Spain

  (The Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of metropolitan Spain and so are part of the EU and take part in elections to the European Parliament)

  UK

  Anguilla

  No

  No

  Bermuda

  No

  No

  British Antarctic Territory

  No

  No

  British Indian Ocean Territory

  No

  No

  British Virgin Islands

  No

  No

  Cayman Islands

  No

  No

  Falklands Islands

  No

  No

  Gibraltar

  Yes

  No

  Hong Kong

  No

  No

  Montserrat

  No

  No

  Pitcairn Henderson Ducie and Oeno

  No

  No

  Islands

  St. Helena and Dependencies

  No

  No

  S. Georgia and S. Sandwich Islands

  No

  No

  Turks and Caicos

  No

  No

  Sovereign Base Areas (Cyprus)

  No

  No

  The Channel Islands and Isle of Man apply some parts of the EU treaties, but do not elect representatives to the EP

  Germany

  Buesingen

  Yes

  Yes

  Heligoland

  Yes

  Yes

  Italy

  Livigno

  Yes

  Yes

  Campione d'Italia

  Yes

  Yes

  Finland

  Aaland Islands

  Yes

  Yes

  Austria, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden have no overseas territories for whose external relations they are responsible

  533

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20479]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are committed to the Confederation of British Industry prompt payment code, which requires all invoices to be paid within the agreed credit period, or within 30 days of receipt where no credit period has been agreed. Details of the past performance of the FCO was given in a reply to the hon. Member on 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 754.

  Figures for outstanding payments within the FCO on 5 March could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19911]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: Capita Managed Services and Lusis Business Solutions are not currently involved in bidding to the FCO for any of these services.

  EU Working Time Directive
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to implement the European Union's working time directive; and if he will make a statement. [20332]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no intention of implementing any part of the working time directive in advance of the decision by the European Court of Justice on the UK's legal challenge to the directive.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Policies (Lichfield)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of Government policies on the people of the city of Lichfield. [18422]

  The Prime Minister
  Lichfield has benefited fully from the Government's policies, which have given this country a stronger recovery than any other large European country and the longest run of low inflation for almost 50 years. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. since its peak.

  Department of Employment
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Prime Minister what functions of the former Department of Employment have been transferred to(a) the Department of Trade and Industry,
  534
  (b) The Department for Education and Employment and (c) other Government Departments; and what plans he has for the further transfer of such functions. [20338]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the press notice released by No. 10 Downing street on 5 July 1995, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. It was subsequently decided that the Department for Education and Employment would have responsibility for work permits.

  I have at present no plans for the further transfer of functions.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March. [18979]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March. [18980]

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

  Children (Exploitation)
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Prime Minister what invitations he has received from the Swedish Government for United Kingdom governmental participation in the world congress against commercial exploitation of children, to be held in Stockholm in August; what response has been made to the invitation; and which individuals will represent the United Kingdom. [20399]

  The Prime Minister
  We intend to take part in this congress in response to an invitation I have received from the Swedish Prime Minister. The British embassy is in close touch with the organisers in Stockholm, but a final decision has still to be made on the composition of the United Kingdom delegation.

  Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE. [20659]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has resigned as a substitute delegate to the assembly and will be replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). This change takes effect from today.

  Conservative Party Functions
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions upon which Government-owned premises were used for Conservative party functions in 1995, including details of the purposes for which each event was held, the name of each event's host and the date, time and place of each event. [17614]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: This information is not held centrally.
  535

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many EU regulations have been passed; how many of these have altered United Kingdom law; and how many have been the subject of the fiche d'impact in each of the last five years. [18649]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The table provides a breakdown of the number of European Community regulations introduced since 1991.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Council1

  335

  383

  319

  274

  242

  Commission2

  1,107

  1,125

  1,055

  963

  748

  Source:

  1 Annual general reports of the activities of the European Communities from 1991–95.

  2 Commission's CELEX database of Community legislation. The figures exclude short-term or temporary regulations—eg. those measures relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters. for 1995, the figures include regulations adopted up to 12 December 1995; full year figures are not yet available.

  All European Community regulations are directly applicable in United Kingdom law. Information on how many proposals have been the subject of a fiche d' impact is not held centrally. However, it is the Government's policy to press for all proposals for Community legislation which may have a significant impact on business to be accompanied by a fiche d'impact.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners(a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area who have been held in custody for a period in excess of three months. [18255]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 12 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for the current number of remand prisoners (a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area who have been held in custody for a period in excess of three months.
  The latest information is for 30 June 1995. On that date, 4,230 remand prisoners in England and Wales had first been remanded to custody more than three months previously. This figure includes both those who are awaiting trial and those who have been convicted and are awaiting sentence. The period since first remand into custody includes any intervening time spent on bail into prison. 265 of these remand prisoners were held in either Manchester prison or Hindley remand centre.
  536

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19036]

  Mr. Howard
  The cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for in each of the past five years are:

  Value £

  1991–92 Equipment/Furniture

  4 items below £5,000

  7,615

  Information Technology (IT) Equipment

  3 items below £5,000

  3,270

  1992–93 Equipment/Furniture

  6 Items below £5,000

  3,482

  IT Equipment

  1 item below £5,000

  1,000

  Items stolen costing £5,000 or more

  23 heat lamps

  7,050

  Horsebox and tools

  6,500

  Total

  13,550

  1993–94 Equipment/Furniture

  7 items below £5,000

  7,283

  IT Equipment

  3 items below £5,000

  5,127

  Items stolen costing £5,000 or more

  3 computer systems and equipment

  5,000

  Computer system

  5,000

  Total

  10,000

  1994–95

  Equipment/Furniture

  6 items below £5,000

  5,272

  IT Equipment

  13 items below £5,000

  15,517

  1995–96

  Equipment/Furniture

  6 items below £5,000

  6,435

  IT Equipment

  6 items below £5,000

  11,000

  Items stolen costing £5,000 or more

  4 Computer systems

  6,000

  Computer components

  55,000

  Total

  61,000

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Gatsometer speed cameras are in use on trunk roads in England and Wales. [19619]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  537
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for speeding have resulted from the introduction of Gatsometer speed cameras; and how many have resulted in convictions. [19620]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of prosecutions for speeding offences detected by automatic cameras is published in the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Motoring Offences, England and Wales 1994", issue 23/95, Table B, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  The information available to me suggests that some 94 per cent. of these prosecutions completed during 1994 led to a conviction.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reliability of evidence gained by Gatsometer speed cameras. [19621]

  Mr. Maclean
  All radar speed meters, such as the Gatsometer, have to be type approved by the Secretary of State under the provisions of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended, before they can be used for traffic law enforcement. To obtain type approval, such equipment must first be evaluated by the police service and it is then subjected to independent laboratory testing in which it has to meet published standards, including ones for accuracy and reliability, which have been set by the police scientific development branch. Police procedures also provide for other checks to be made on the reliability and accuracy of the equipment when it is in use.

  Chinese Community
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made in the 1985 report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Chinese community in Britain. [19644]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Football-related Offences
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens were arrested in Munich before Nottingham Forest's match with Bayern Munich in the UEFA cup; and how many of them had previously been convicted in England for football-related offences. [19876]

  Mr. Maclean
  Of the 56 English fans arrested, three are known to have been previously convicted in England and Wales for football-related offences.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the German Government to seek to reach a bilateral agreement with that Government so that domestic courts can impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences in Germany. [19875]

  Mr. Maclean
  Approaches were made to the German Government shortly after the Football Spectators Act 1989 was implemented. However, there has been no progress so far in reaching an agreement, largely because of the federal structure of Germany.
  538
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he is making to the German authorities to ensure that all those arrested for alleged offences in Munich before Nottingham Forest's match with Bayern Munich in the UEFA cup are prosecuted in Germany. [19874]

  Mr. Maclean
  The prosecution of those who commit offences in another country is entirely a matter for that country.

  Prisoners' Brains
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who is responsible for decisions to remove deceased prisoners' brains; [19955]

  (2) who was responsible for the decision to remove Ronald Kray's brain. [19954]

  Mr. Sackville
  If organs or tissue are required to be removed for further examination to establish the cause of death, the decision is taken by the pathologist under the direction of the coroner.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the locations in which Ronald Kray's brain was stored before being returned to the body. [19963]

  Mr. Sackville
  Arrangements for the care of the material are a matter for the pathologists involved.

  Electoral Registration
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted and fined for refusing to enter their names on the electoral register in each of the last five years. [19690]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use improved technology to provide for a closing date for absent vote applications nearer the date of elections; what proposals he has to abolish dies non in future calculations of election timetables; and if he will make a statement. [19803]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have been considering the question of changing the closing date for the receipt of absent voting applications and hope to make an announcement soon. There are no plans to abolish dies non.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use improved technology to provide for a qualifying date for electoral registration nearer the publication of the electoral register; and if he will make a statement. [19804]

  Mr. Sackville
  The great majority of electoral registration officers already make extensive use of technology, but still require all the time between the qualifying date and the publication of the register to meet the current statutory provisions. There are no plans to change either date.

  Crime (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the level of recorded crime in Bournemouth in each quarter since 1992. [19815]
  539
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on recorded crime below police force level is not collected centrally.

  Body Parts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those who have made contact with(a) his Department and (b) the Prison Service in order to solicit body parts for (i) organ donation and (ii) medical research; and what was the response to each request. [19964]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is a matter for the relatives and the person in lawful possession of the body to authorise the removal of body parts for these purposes and we are not aware of any such applications made to the Department or to the Prison Service. The donation of organs and the removal of body parts for medical research are governed by the Human Tissue Act 1961.

  Visas
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries whose nationals are able to enter the United Kingdom without a visa. [20070]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A list of those countries or territories whose nationals require visas to enter the United Kingdom is set out in the appendix to the Immigration Rules, as amended, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Betting
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to enforce the original contract where a gambler places a series of ante-post bets which are subsequently successful and the bookmaker fails to pay out on the accumulator and sets maximum winnings at a significantly lower level. [19372]

  Mr. Kirkhipe
  In law, all wagering contracts are unenforceable. However, under the Licensed Betting Offices Regulations 1986, bookmakers are required to display a notice setting out the terms on which they invite persons to bet on those premises including any maximum limit on the amount of winnings and the procedure for the resolutions of disputed bets.

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Chepstow
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes his Department plans which will affect the forensic science laboratory in Chepstow; and if he will make a statement. [19933]

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Chief Executive of the Forensic Science Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Janet Thompson to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 12 March 1996:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about the future of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) laboratory at Chepstow. As you know, the arrangement now is that the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the FSS.
  540
  The FSS announced on 29 February that, as part of a national restructuring programme, it was looking at proposals to close three laboratories. These are first the laboratory at Aldermaston and subsequently, depending on the success of the earlier restructuring, those at Huntingdon and Chepstow. The proposals are subject to staff consultation. They were announced at this early stage to allow staff to be fully involved in their development. They are also subject to consultation with the police, both nationally and with individual Chief Constables, in particular on the development of a new national network of local forensic offices to bring forensic science closer to the investigator.
  It may be helpful if I briefly explain the background to the proposals. As you may be aware, on 1 April 1996, the FSS is to merge with the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory to form a new integrated national Forensic Science Service providing an improved and streamlined resource throughout England and Wales.
  Joint research conducted by the FSS with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), together with regular FSS Customer Satisfaction surveys, have identified that substantial improvements could be achieved by the creation of a new national service, organised in national business areas. This would combine centralisation of scientific analysis to reduce cost and improve asset utilisation, with the development of a number of local forensic outlets to bring the service closer to its customers. We propose therefore, to concentrate scientific analytical resources at four key sites in London, Birmingham, Chorley and Wetherby. In addition to these four sites, there will be a network of new small forensic offices and satellite laboratories across the country. This will enable the FSS to provide a wide range of scientific support that will be geographically much more closely linked to the operational centres of the various county constabularies and metropolitan forces. The FSS is working with the Association of Chief Police Officers in developing the restructuring proposals to ensure that the changes support their forensic requirements.
  As I explained earlier, the proposed closures are provisional at this stage. Moreover for all three laboratories, there is a guarantee that jobs will be available for all existing scientific caseworking staff. There will be some reductions in support staff at each site, but these will be small. The proposed restructuring will involve no diminution of service. Indeed the aim is to provide a better one. The increasing success of forensic science in the detection of crime and the conviction of offenders means that as a resource it must be made as easily available to the greatest number of police in the most cost effective way possible.

  Child Abuse Cases
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the treatment of victims and witnesses in child abuse cases. [20024]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have introduced a range of measures in recent years to make it easier for children in these cases to give their evidence. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made provision for children, with the leave of the court, to give their evidence by live television link so that they need never appear in court. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 prohibited the defendant from cross-examining the child and provided for a video-recorded interview to serve as the child's evidence-in-chief at the trial, again with the leave of the court.

  These changes have helped to reduce stress for children who have to give evidence, but we are determined to implement further improvements. The Criminal Procedure

  541
  and Investigations Bill provides for binding rulings to be made so that children will have greater certainty about whether a video-recorded interview will be admitted as evidence-in-chief and whether they can give their evidence by live television link. We are pursuing a range of other measures, including further consideration of ways to reduce delays, improved arrangements for preparing the child for what to expect and promoting best practice in dealing with child witnesses, which will secure practical benefits for children.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is undertaken by those responsible for the video taping of victims' evidence in child abuse cases; and if he will make a statement. [20025]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government issued a memorandum of good practice following the introduction of the measures in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which allow a video-recorded interview with the child to serve as their evidence-in-chief. The memorandum was drawn up with the assistance of professionals and organisations with the experience of working with abused children and provides practical guidance to police officers and social workers who conduct video-taped interviews.

  Number of offenders convicted, at all courts, for certain crimes 1984–94

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Violent crime1

  58,496

  58,564

  53,201

  58,925

  65,450

  70,890

  69,215

  63,599

  61,596

  57,335

  58,408

  Car crime>2

  37,651

  37,821

  35,048

  35,214

  32,735

  29,836

  30,252

  30,472

  24,914

  22,091

  21,612

  Serious crime3

  449,449

  443,936

  384,209

  386,419

  386,236

  339,547

  342,759

  337,608

  324,910

  307,584

  314,148

  1 Includes the indictable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery and the summary offences of common assault.

  2 Includes the indictable offences of theft from a vehicle, theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking.

  3 Taken as all indicatable, including triable either way, offences (including those in (1) and (2) above).

  Stalking
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of current legislation and injunctions to combat stalking and (b) his plans for legislation to combat stalking. [20026]

  Mr. Maclean
  The existing criminal law can be used to deal with a number of aspects of stalking behaviour. It is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986; to make an indecent, obscene or menacing telephone call under the Telecommunications Act 1984; and to send an indecent, offensive and threatening letter under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. As a recent successful prosecution has shown, more serious acts by stalkers, such as causing grievous bodily harm, are caught by the criminal law.

  Under civil law, a plaintiff may claim an injunction where he or she can demonstrate an actionable tort and once this is established the courts have a wide discretion to grant injunctions to meet the circumstances of a case.

  Notwithstanding these powers, the Government are considering whether there is a need for wider measures specifically to combat the conduct of stalkers.
  542
  In addition to the memorandum, training for interviewing was provided by courses under the auspices of the Metropolitan police training centre and supplemented by an Open university training pack. Police officers and social workers now receive joint training known as the CAMAT—child abuse management and training course. Advice on interviewing child witnesses and victims is also included in the national investigative interviewing course which is available to all police officers and is now incorporated in mainstream police training.

  We have commissioned further research to identify and promote best local practices for training child abuse investigators.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of convictions for(a) violent crime, (b) car crime and (c) serious crime in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [20049]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Director of Health Care for Prisoners
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish the fourth report of the Director of Health Care for Prisoners and the Health Advisory Committee's commentary on the report. [20823]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The report and commentary are published today. Copies are available from the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drink Driving
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure incurred in the production and advertising of the "Never Ever Drink and Drive" campaign on(a) television, (b) radio and (c) printed media. [19868]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  Television: £328,6001

  Radio: Nil

  Printed media: £17,400

  1Includes contribution from private sector.
  543
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the production and advertising of the "Never Ever Drink and Drive" campaign went to(a) public tender and (b) quotation. [19870]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment advertising agency briefed film production companies on 14 August 1995. Their quotations were submitted on 24 August 1995.

  Public tendering rules do not apply to the purchase of advertising time and space. Production costs for the "Never Ever Drink and Drive" campaign were subject to quotation and extensive negotiation with all candidates during the months of September and October 1995.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules and regulations covered the tendering and awarding of the "Never Ever Drink and Drive" campaign; and how many tenders were requested. [19869]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment appointed the advertising agency, McCann-Erickson Belfast, by public tender, to carry out its road safety advertising campaigns. The "Never Ever Drink and Drive" campaign is part of that contract and the successful production company appointed to produce the television and cinema commercial was selected from bids from eight competing firms.

  There are no published guidelines or regulations for advertising agencies when selecting production companies to produce a film.

  Schools and Colleges (Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the capital building programme for schools and colleges in Northern Ireland for the next five years. [19682]

  Mr. Ancram
  No. My Department's capital programme is published on an annual basis. The capital programme for 1996–97, totalling £48 million, was published on 5 February 1996.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the capital expenditure on schools and colleges in Northern Ireland in(a) real and (b) constant price terms in each of the past 10 years. [19681]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure on schools and colleges by education and library boards and grants paid by the Department of Education on approved capital expenditure incurred by voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools for each of the financial years 1984–85 to 1993–94 is set out in the table. Capital expenditure by boards is set out in the statements and the summary of the education and library boards' accounts, copies of which are available in the Library. The boards' figures for 1994–95 will be published in July 1996.
  544

  £ million

  Year

  Real price terms

  Constant price terms (1993–94)

  1984–85

  15.763

  25.311

  1985–86

  16.621

  25.420

  1986–87

  26.108

  38.754

  1987–88

  27.308

  38.313

  1988–89

  35.485

  46.662

  1989–90

  48.72

  59.884

  1990–91

  63.916

  72.731

  1991–92

  66.56

  71.289

  1992–93

  76.603

  78.838

  1993–94

  72.355

  72.355

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what estimate he has made of the maintenance backlog of each education and library board in Northern Ireland; [19683]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the maintenance backlog of the education and library boards in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [19684]

  (3) what action he has taken in response to the report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office "Education and Library Boards: Maintenance of Board Property". [19685]

  Mr. Ancram
  The current estimated maintenance backlog of each board is as follows:

  Belfast: £33.6 million

  North-eastern: £12.7 million

  South-eastern: £30.3 million

  Southern: £22.3 million

  Western: £14.8 million

  The extent of the maintenance backlog in any year is dependent on the previous level of investment by the boards and any additional demands which may arise. Estimates of the total maintenance needs for the three years ending 1999–2000 are not available.

  The Northern Ireland Audit Office report has been considered in consultation with the education and library boards and a programme of action has been agreed to address the report's recommendations. This matter is the subject of on-going Public Accounts Committee consideration and my Department will be responding in detail to the PAC report in due course.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20094]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is in the table.
  545

  Advisory non-departmental public bodies

  Publish their advice to the Government

  Publish an annual report before Parliament

  Lay an annual report before Parliament

  Statutory requirement

  Voluntarily

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Boundary Commission

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to Medicine

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Central Dental Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Central Medical Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Central Nursing Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Central Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Charities Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Clinical Imaging Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Laboratory Services Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Poisons Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Northern Ireland Water Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Northern Ireland Building Regulation Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Historic Buildings Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Historic Monuments Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Industrial Development Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Training and Employment Agency (Advisory Board)

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Health and Safety Agency

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Committees for the Employment of Disabled People

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20111]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In respect of all advisory non-departmental bodies in Northern Ireland, the answers to questions(a), (d), (e) and (f) is nil. The information requested at questions (b) and (c) is as follows:

  Advisory body

  Body

  Conduct public consultation exercises

  Conduct public consultation exercises with outside interests

  Law Reform Advisory Committee

  Yes

  No

  The Northern Ireland Higher Education Council

  Yes on a voluntary basis

  No

  The Northern Ireland Building Regulation Advisory Committee

  Yes on a voluntary basis

  No

  546

  Advisory body

  Body

  Conduct public consultation exercises

  Conduct public consultation exercises with outside interests

  The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  Invites representations on published Provisional Revised Recommendations for parliamentary constituencies; may hold public Local Inquiries, all as a matter of statutory requirement

  By convention holds talks with the main political parties in NI

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Yes for research purposes

  No

  In respect of all other advisory non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland, the answer is nil.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20483]
  547
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, if no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20473]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1007.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff work in(a) the Palace of Westminster and (b) each of the outbuildings. [19326]

  Mr. Beith
  Six hundred and thirty full-time and 80 part-time staff employed by the Commission work in the Palace of Westminster. Five hundred and forty-nine full-time and 82 part-time staff work in other buildings on the parliamentary estate.

  Recycling
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what plans there are to discontinue the use of styrofoam cups in refreshment facilities in the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings. [19290]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services; I have ask her to write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans there are to increase recycling facilities in the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings in the future. [19294]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The policy of the two Houses of Parliament is to recycle waste whenever possible. Under the waste collection contract for the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary outbuildings the contractor is required to sort waste into its constituent streams. These waste streams are sent for recycling wherever practicable. This process is audited to ensure compliance. In addition, bulk waste paper from the Vote Office and Fees Office is collected separately for recycling.

  Any further increases in recycling facilities would be subject to space and staffing constraints.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when the use of recycled stationery and envelopes began in the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings. [19295]
  548
  Mr. Martin
  Stocks of recycled A4 size writing paper with the crowned portcullis embossed plain and in green, blue and red, together with recycled plain post-paid envelopes became available from the Serjeant at Arms Stores with effect from June 1991.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what plans there are to ensure that all parliamentary stationery and envelopes are derived from recycled material; [19296]

  (2) what was the breakdown of the collection of recycled goods for each of the buildings within the parliamentary estate for each year since 1992–93; [19292]

  (3) what steps have been taken to ensure that people working in the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings are aware of recycling initiatives; [19297]

  (4) if he will set out the facilities currently available within the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings for the purpose of recycling; [19293]

  (5) what is the average tonnage of (a) paper, (b) glass, (c) metal and (d) plastic from the Palace of Westminster and surrounding office buildings recycled each year; [19291]

  (6) what studies have been undertaken to determine how much money could be realised through the collection and sale of recycled goods in the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings; [19289]

  (7) if he will list the incentives currently in place in the Palace of Westminster and the surrounding office buildings to promote the use of recycling facilities. [19288]

  Mr. Martin
  These are matters for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what differences in cost would arise if all parliamentary stationery and enveloped were derived from recycled material; and if he will make a statement. [20233]

  Mr. Martin
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]At present prices it is estimated that the House would save £14,000 per annum if all paper and envelopes were from recycled paper. The hon. Member may be interested to note that recycled paper is now becoming more expensive than good quality paper, whereas 12 months ago it was the reverse, and costs are likely to change.

TREASURY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional revenue which would accrue from taxing child benefit as income. [19346]

  Mr. Jack
  If child benefit were taxed, the yield for 1996–97 from taxing it as part of the father's or lone mother's income would be about £1,300 million. If it were taxed as part of the mother's or lone father's income, the yield would be about £700 million.
  549

  Investment Statistics
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the capital value of(a) £1,000, (b) £2,000, (c) £3,000, (d) £4,000 and (e) £5,000 invested 18 years ago in (i) Government bonds, (ii) the average building society savings account and (iii) the average unit trust. [18862]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Capital values of £1,000 invested 18 years ago are as follows:

  Investment

  Capital value

  Period of investment

  (i) Government bonds

  £7,587

  End December 1977 to December 1995

  (ii) average building society savings account

  data not available over this period

  (iii) Unit trusts

  £14,230

  End February 1978 to February 1996

  The earliest published data for average building society savings account rates start in January 1984. The capital values of £1,000 invested 12 years ago are as follows:

  Investment

  Capital value

  Period of investment

  (i) Government bonds

  £3,616

  end December 1983 to December 1995

  (ii) average building society savings account

  £2,295

  end December 1983 to December 1995

  (iii) unit trusts

  £4,795

  end December 1983 to December 1995

  All the above figures assume that interest and dividend payments are reinvested in the same investment instruments.

  Source:

  FT Actuaries Government All Stock index of total returns.

  Building Societies Commission, published in CSO Financial Statistics.

  UK Growth unit trust sector, on an offer to bid basis; data collated by Micropal.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that it is up to the investor, alone, to identify a breach of section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986. [19966]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No. It is also for those authorities with prosecution powers under section 47 to take what action they consider appropriate in the light of information they receive.

  Farmers Union of Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has recently received from the Farmers Union of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20078]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has recently received no representations from the union.
  550

  DIY Housebuilders
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims by do-it-yourself housebuilders for the refund of value added tax under the provisions of customs and excise notice number 719 were met in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [19646]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of the number of claims met in 1993 are not available. The number of claims met— partly estimate—in 1994 was 8,671 and the number met in 1995 was 10,423.

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy that capital already invested by companies in research and installation of the best practicable environmental option for the disposal of waste materials can be set against liability for landfill tax; [19993]

  (2) what definition of qualifying material for the lower rate of landfill tax will be the benchmark for fiscal decision; [19994]

  (3) what are the fiscal objectives of the landfill tax; [19976]

  (4) when he expects to receive the report on the consultation process on the scope of the lower rate of the landfill tax; and if he will publish the results; [19975]

  (5) what research he has commissioned into whether reduction in employers' national insurance contributions will provide the intended benefit to industry in relation to the landfill tax; [19979]

  (6) if he will consider the zero-rating the landfill tax for those companies whose processes already comply with the environmental objectives of the tax; [19977]

  (7) if he will consider extending the scope of the lower rate of landfill tax to include (a) waste materials which are commonly termed as inert or inactive, other than those listed in category 1 of the proposed natural waste confiscation system in the Finance Bill; [19978]

  (8) what are the environmental objectives of the landfill tax; [19693]

  (9) what are the definitions of active and inactive waste used for the purposes of the landfill tax in the consultation exercise on the system for classifying waste for the national waste classification system; [19694]

  (10) if water, brine or other natural elements used to carry waste materials for landfill will be included in the weight measure for the landfill tax where they are recycled for re-use; [19695]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The objectives of the landfill tax are essentially environmental. It will play a key part in achieving the aims of the Government's waste strategy in reducing our reliance on landfill and promoting more sustainable alternatives such as waste minimisation, re-use and recovery. In fiscal terms it will also enable us to reduce employer national insurance contributions which will benefit industry by cutting the cost of employment by some £500 million a year, rather more than landfill tax is expected to raise. This follows extensive consultation with

  551
  business and marks a shift in the burden of taxation on business, away from employment and towards taxing its environmental impact.

  We have included a number of provisions in the legislation which will reinforce the environmental objectives of the tax. The associated proposal for environmental trusts, which has the potential to generate about £100 million of private sector investment for environmental improvement, will complement and reinforce our policies for sustainable waste management.

  We also wish to facilitate the recycling and re-use of materials which are sent to landfill sites. Therefore, by agreement with the local customs officer, operators will be able to define tax-free zones within their sites to enable them to carry out non-taxable activities, such as waste separation for recycling and composting. There will also be provision for credits where an operator removes waste from his landfill site for recycling or re-use within 12 months of it being landfilled. And for certain wastes that contain added water to assist with waste disposable or for mineral extraction, local customs officers will be able to agree formulae with operators so that the tax is levied on the naturally occurring weight of the waste, provided that the added water does not increase the risk of pollution through leaching. This will ensure that there is no incentive for operators to reduce the addition of water where it is needed for environmental purposes. The categories of waste to which this applies will be set out in regulations, on which we shall be consulting.

  I recognise that, for a range of wastes, landfill will remain the best practical environmental option and I am aware that in some cases industry has been responsible and invested to reduce the pollution potential of its waste. However, the fact that waste from a particular industrial process is disposed of in accordance with the best practical environmental option does not in itself ensure that the full environmental cost of landfill disposal is reflected in the price paid for waste disposal. The underlying purpose of the tax is to make environmental costs explicit and ensure that those contemplating activities with environmental impacts take account of these costs. The tax will also provide an incentive for waste producers to look for new ways to reduce the amount of waste which they produce.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget that there will be two rates of landfill tax—a lower rate for inactive material and a standard rate for other wastes. Customs consulted on a proposal that all wastes falling within category one, the inactive category, of the Department of the Environment's national waste classification scheme should be liable to the lower rate of landfill tax. Inactive wastes are those that do not physically or chemically react, decay or adversely affect other matter with which they come into contact in a way that is likely to give rise to environmental pollution. The term active waste is not one which is used in the context of the landfill tax—wastes which will be liable at the standard rate will be all those which are not inactive or exempt.

  In considering what will be included in the list of lower rate materials, we will take account of whether the materials are commonly described as inert or inactive. But that does not necessarily mean listing only those wastes which are set out in category 1 of the waste
  552
  classification scheme. There are wastes currently listed in other categories of the scheme where the risk of pollution is minimal. We will consider including such materials in the lower rate list in the light of the replies to the consultation exercise.

  Customs is currently analysing these replies and will submit its findings to Ministers shortly. Once these have been evaluated, we will announce our decisions and publish a report on the consultation. The Treasury order containing the list of items to be included in the lower rate will be laid during the summer.

  Income Tax (Probation Service Trainees)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations led the Inland Revenue not to repay income tax to those probation service trainees from whom it was illegally deducted before 1992; and if he will make a statement. [18507]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Payments to candidates sponsored by the Home Office to undertake training as probation officers were originally considered to be taxable and tax was deducted by the Home Office. However, following a decision of the special commissioners in 1990, it was accepted that the payments constituted a scholarship and were therefore exempt from tax. Repayments have been made to students who had tax deducted in error back as far as 1985–86. The Inland Revenue is considering further the position for earlier years with its legal advisers.

  Tax Office Closures
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he is undertaking into the proposed closure of the LP30 income tax office in Stockport and the LP12 and LP13 offices in Old Trafford and their relocation to Manchester; and what estimate he has made of the(a) cost and (b) savings from relocation. [18973]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The Inland Revenue is engaged in a programme to reorganise the structure of all local tax and collection offices to ensure the right operational framework is in place to deliver its business objectives. As part of this programme, the controller of Inland Revenue north-west regional office is looking at all London provincial tax offices in the Greater Manchester area together to rationalise accommodation and form a coherent reorganisation package.

  Private finance initiative options are under consideration but further detailed work is required before a final decision can be made. Preliminary indications are that the proposed reorganisation will offer significant financial savings as well as providing opportunities to provide a better quality service to the taxpayer and improve the working environment of staff.

  National Health Service (VAT)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of total VAT receipts from the NHS in each year from 1979 to 1995. [20266]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: Estimates of the total VAT on expenditure by the NHS are as follows for each year from 1979 to 1994. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  553

  £ billion

  1979

  0.1

  1980

  0.2

  1981

  0.2

  1982

  0.2

  1983

  0.2

  1984

  0.3

  1985

  0.3

  1986

  0.3

  1987

  0.4

  1988

  0.4

  1989

  0.4

  1990

  0.6

  1991

  0.8

  1992

  1.2

  1993

  1.3

  1994

  1.5

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations have been received from, or on behalf of, regional newspapers in respect of the cross-media ownership proposals in the Broadcasting Bill; and if she will make a statement. [19339]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has received a large number of letters on this issue from the local newspaper industry. Ministers and officials have met its representatives on many occasions. We have listened carefully to the industry's concerns and amended the Government's proposals in the light of them. We remain of the view, however, that limits on cross-ownership between newspapers and broadcasters are needed both at the national level and at the local level.

  Wrecks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to ensure the adequate publication of the results of archaeological excavation of designated wreck sites off England and Wales. [19760]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has responsibility for designated wreck sites in English territorial waters. Those in Welsh waters are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. The Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, which advises on all matters concerning designated wreck sites throughout United Kingdom waters, actively encourages licensees to publish results of their investigations. I understand that an independent body is considering a publication recording survey and excavation work on all designated sites since the introduction of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.

  Television Licences
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what powers exists to confiscate the television set from a household where the licence has not been paid and where the owner of the set refuses, or is unable to pay; and if she will make a statement. [19878]
  554
  Mr. Sproat
  The only penalty available for television licence fee evasion under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, as amended, is a fine of up to £1,000. Non-payment can lead to the seizure of goods which may be sold to realise the value of the fine, but there is no power for the courts to order seizure of specific goods. In addition, following conviction, the courts in England and Wales have the power to order forfeiture of any property in an offender's possession which was used or was intended to be used in the commission of an offence, irrespective of whether the offender is dealt with in any other way. In making the order, however, the court must have regard to the value of the property and the effects, financial or other, on the offender. We are unaware of any licence evasion cases in which the courts have ordered forfeiture of a TV set.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what deregulation orders her Department has made under sections 1 to 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [20717]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department laid its first deregulation order before the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees on 4 March 1996. This will ease the burden on business by abolishing the existing statutory requirements for television dealers both to register with the BBC and to hold and pay a fee for a dealer demonstration licence.

  International Sporting Events
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her Department's response to the fifth report of the National Heritage Select Committee's report "Bids to Stage International Sporting Events", HC (1994–95) 493. [20716]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department responded to the National Heritage Select Committee's report on 11 January and I have today placed copies of the response in the House Libraries.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18651]

  Mr. Sproat
  This information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interest, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20112]
  555
  Mr. Sproat
  The following is the information:

  (a) None

  (b) None

  (c) Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  (d) None

  (e) None

  (f) None

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government,(b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20095]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Theatres Trust has a statutory base.

  (a) Library and Information Commission

  (b) Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Library and Information Commission1

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  Theatres Trust

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  (c) (i) None

  (ii) Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  1 The Library and Information Commission is less than a year old and has not yet published an annual report. When it does so it will decide if it will lay the report before Parliament.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buyout consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market testing schemes in her Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19907]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer Friday 8 March 1996]: Neither my Department nor its two agencies are involved in any bids with either Capita Managed Services or Lusis Business Solutions for any of the five categories mentioned.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the implications of the resignation of John Jasper as chairman of Capital Managed Services Ltd. the liquidation of Midsummer Computer Exchange and his appointment as a director of Lusis Business Solutions on the transfer of the Midsummer contract to Lusis for the supply of software to UK public sector museums. [19782]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer Friday 8 March 1996]: I have no plans to make such an assessment. The procurement of software by individual museums is a matter for the museums concerned.
  556

  Military Knights
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 19 February 1996,Official Report, column 63, if she will state the current level of gross income set by the keeper of the privy purse for the military knights of Windsor. [19440]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer Friday 8 March 1996]: The current level of gross income set by the keeper of the privy purse for officers wishing to apply for the appointment of military knights of Windsor is £10,000.

  Royal Palaces Estate
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those members of the royal family who occupy self-contained residential accommodation on the occupied royal palaces estate. [19439]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer Friday 8 March 19961: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 February, Official Report, column 547.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the names of the pensioners and the location of their accommodation within the occupied royal palaces estate. [19435]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]There have been several retirements over the past 18 months and there are now 34 pensioners in housing maintained from the grant in aid provided by my Department.

  Nine were previous stables staff or are the widows of previous stables staff, four were previously members of the domestic staff or are widows of previous members of the domestic staff, one is the sister of a previous member of the domestic staff, four were previously gatekeepers or are widows of previous gatekeepers, one is the widow of a previous curator at Hampton Court palace, 11 were previously officials in the royal household and four are grace and favour occupants.

  One pensioner lives in Marlborough House mews, eight in or adjacent to the Royal mews at Windsor castle, seven in Windsor Home park, eight in Windsor Great park, nine in or near to the Royal mews at Hampton court and one in Hampton court paddocks.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the names of the grace and favour pensioners and the accommodation they have within the occupied royal palaces estate. [19434]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: There are four grace and favour pensioners. One is a cousin of the Queen, one is a retired principal of the foundation of St. Catherine, one is the daughter of a wartime chief of the general staff and one is a former nanny to the Queen's children.

  Three of the pensioners are housed in Windsor Great park and one in Windsor Home park.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 17 January 1996,Official Report, column 731, if she will make a statement of the way in which the public funds

  557
  contribution to the costs of fire damage to Windsor castle was calculated; and what specific restoration costs will be met from the expected £10.8 million contribution from public funds. [19482]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: Following the fire at Windsor castle, the royal household offered to fund 70 per cent. of the cost of the restoration by opening the state rooms at Buckingham palace to the public and introducing charges for entry to the precincts of Windsor castle. The balance of 30 per cent. was to be found from the existing level of funding provided by my Department for the general maintenance of the estate.

  Total expenditure will be split on a 70 per cent. basis and no specific items will be allocated to either tranche.

  Prince and Princess of Wales (Accommodation)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what accommodation at Kensington palace is occupied by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales and her staff. [19365]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]The Princess of Wales has an apartment at Kensington palace and two of Her Royal Highness's domestic staff occupy flats there.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what accommodation at St. James's palace is occupied by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his staff. [19364]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]The Prince of Wales has an apartment at St. James's palace. None of his staff has self-contained residential accommodation at St. James's palace, although His Royal Highness's office is there.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Fire Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to make an announcement on the role of the fire service arising out of the report of an interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement completed in June 1994. [20274]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on 6 March, column 231.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulations relating to safety at work have been(a) repealed and (b) modified as a result of recommendations by the deregulation unit. [19574]

  Mr. Freeman
  In its review of regulation, the Health and Safety Commission identified 100 regulations and seven pieces of primary legislation as outdated or unnecessary which could be removed or reformed without reducing necessary protection. This represents 40 per cent. of health and safety regulations affecting the generality of business. The removal of a number of these regulations has also been recommended by the sectorial task forces under Lord Sainsbury, and the deregulation task force,558
  chaired by Mr. Francis Maude, also recommended that the burden of health and safety needed to be significantly reduced.

  As a result of these reviews, 12 sets of regulations affecting business generally and 18 other sets now have been removed, as well as some partial repeals such as 53 requirements to display posters and notices.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulations have been(a) repealed and (b) modified as a result of work by the deregulation unit and in which subject areas. [19573]

  Mr. Freeman
  We have so far repealed or amended over 500 regulations out of a target of over 1,000 regulations. Examples include the simplification of food temperature control regulations which will save business about £40 million per annum and simplification of trade marks legislation which is saving business about £30 million a year. Details of other key areas of reform are identified in "Deregulation: The Way Forward" published in May 1995 and in "The Government's Response to the First Annual Report of the Deregulation Task Force" published in September 1995, copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  Local Government Performance Indicators
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representation he has made to the Audit Commission to receive advance copies of the Audit Commission's local government performance indicators due to be published on 21 March. [20326]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  None.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of member' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20116]

  Mr. Willetts
  The answers to each part of this question are:

  (a) The Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life and The Citizens Charter Panel of Advisers.

  (b) The Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life and The Citizens Charter Panel of Advisers.

  (c) None.

  (d) The Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life and The Advisory Committee on Advertising.

  (e) None.

  (f) None.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20103]
  559
  Mr. Willetts
  None of the advisory non-departmental public bodies, for which I am responsible has a statutory role.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days.[20476]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information requested is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost. However, the value of invoices paid by the finance division of the Department and its agencies, excluding Security Facilities Executive, during February 1996, which were more than one month old, was £1,476,334.

  The value of invoices paid by the Central Office of Information, during February 1996, which were more than one month was £948,314. Information on HMSO is available only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Fire Brigades
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has recently received from the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement. [19757]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has received three written representations from the Fire Brigades Union and the Fire Brigades Union (Welsh region) about general issues.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many fire brigades in Wales failed to meet the statutory minimum standards for their rescue and firefighting role in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [19755]

  Mr. Jones
  Responsibility for this matter rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  EstateCare (Privatisation)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the correspondence pertaining to the decision of his predecessor to direct the chairman and Board of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to privatise its EstateCare division. [19669]

  Mr. Hague
  My decision on the future of the EstateCare group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, and the work required to implement it, was conveyed via correspondence and meetings between my Department and the authority. These are properly internal management matters.

  The Arts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to ensure adequate regional co-ordination of strategic plans for the arts, with particular reference to the funding of theatres. [20014]
  560
  Mr. Hague
  The co-ordination of strategic plans is a matter for the Arts Council of Wales and I am asking the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Government will release additional funds to enable local authorities to maintain the current level of education spending in Wales. [20011]

  Mr. Hague
  No. My settlement decisions were approved by the House on 8 February. I have no plans to change them.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated number of red squirrels on Anglesey; and if he will make a statement. [19986]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No reliable estimates are available, but work carried out by the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales suggests there are about 50 red squirrels. Subject to the outcome of a local consultation exercise, the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales intend carrying out a trial project designed to bring about the recovery of Anglesey's red squirrel population.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Government's White Paper for rural Wales will be published; and if he will make a statement. [20719]

  Mr. Hague
  I will tomorrow publish "A Working Countryside for Wales", the Government's White Paper for rural Wales.

  The White Paper has three main themes:

  supporting rural communities

  promoting vigorous sustainable economic development

  and promoting the protection and conservation of the environment.

  "A Working Countryside for Wales" represents a significant stage in the Government's development of policies to address the needs of rural Wales. We want to see vibrant communities where the vital spirit of enterprise is encouraged and nurtured. Only by promoting competitive enterprise will we ensure the creation of new jobs and reinvigorated communities. At the same time, we must not lose sight of our shared responsibility to pass on to the next generation a stronger heritage and a cleaner and better protected environment.

  Ensuring an effective balance between the potentially conflicting pressures of economic growth while sustaining the environment will be the key to a bright future for our rural communities.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each housing association(a) grants received from the public purse, indicating what percentage this represents of housing association

  561
  spending, (b) the average rent for (i) one-bedroomed, (ii) two-bedroomed and (iii) three-bedroomed properties and (c) the amounts held in reserves and its per property figure for each of the last five years. [19932]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These are primarily matters for Housing for Wales and the chief executive has been asked to write to the hon. Member. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20088]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 28 April 1995 by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood),Official Report, column 728.

  I regret that in that answer the Local Government Boundary Commission was described as under a statutory requirement to publish an annual report and lay it before Parliament; it published its report voluntarily. In addition, the Staff Commission for Wales publishes its advice voluntarily and the National Rivers Authority advisory committee lays an annual report before Parliament voluntarily.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20105]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) None;

  (b) the Local Government Boundary Commission has a statutory duty to conduct public consultation exercises. The Staff Commission for Wales conducts such exercises voluntarily;

  (c) to (f) none.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which(a) have a statutory base, (b) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and, (c) hold open meetings for the public; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntarily. [16174]

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 February 1996, c. 298–99]: I regret that there were two errors in the original reply.

  There is no requirement for the Cardiff Bay development corporation to admit members of the public to its board meetings and access is not allowed because of the commercial in confidence nature of board business. The corporation has held many other meetings voluntarily with the public and the business community about its activities and plans.
  562
  The Land Authority for Wales is required to open its board meetings to the public under schedule 1 to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, as amended, but the public may, by resolution, be excluded if the nature of the business is confidential or for other special reasons.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which species of(a) birds and (b) mammals were (i) oiled and (ii) killed in Milford Haven as a result of the incident involving the Sea Empress. [19483]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of oiled and dead birds recovered following the Sea Empress oil spill are in the following table. No dead or oiled mammals have been recovered.

  Sea Empress spillage: Oiled birds counts to 5 March 1996

  Species

  Found dead

  RSPCA rescued

  Died in care

  Manx shearwater

  1

  0

  0

  Fulmar

  1

  0

  0

  Great northern diver

  2

  4

  1

  Black throated diver

  1

  1

  0

  Red throated diver

  10

  35

  7

  Great crested grebe

  2

  1

  0

  Red necked grebe

  0

  4

  1

  Gannet

  2

  0

  0

  Shag

  2

  11

  2

  Cormorant

  34

  0

  0

  Mute swan

  0

  15

  2

  Shelduck

  1

  0

  1

  Mallard

  0

  1

  0

  Scaup

  0

  1

  0

  Scoter

  1,427

  2,592

  594

  Velvet scoter

  0

  3

  0

  Eider

  0

  9

  1

  R-B merganser

  0

  1

  0

  Oystercatcher

  9

  7

  3

  Turnstone

  2

  0

  0

  Black-H gull

  2

  1

  1

  Common gull

  1

  0

  0

  Herring gull

  2

  9

  2

  Kittiwake

  2

  4

  0

  Guillemot

  720

  420

  132

  Razorbill

  178

  23

  10

  Unidentified

  143

  0

  0

  Total

  2,542

  3,142

  757

  These are minimum figures as the complete data set is not yet available.

  There may also be birds which have been picked up and cared for by members of the public, or taken to other bird hospitals which are not included in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals figures.

  Many dead birds will remain at sea, or come ashore in inaccessible places, and not be counted.

  Caution should also be noted with regard to the identification of oiled birds.
  563

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20488]

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

  Emergency Medical Admissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 99, on the emergency admissions action plan, if his meeting with the unitary authorities to discuss budgetary constraints on levels of community care has taken place. [20362]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to meet local authorities to discuss the provision of community care. The local government settlement is discussed each year with the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The settlement for 1996–97 includes £146.6 million for community care, an increase of £25.2 million or 20 per cent. on 1995–96. It is for individual local authorities to decide how to use their resources in the light of local needs and priorities, and for health and local authorities to agree locally their respective responsibilities for continuing care.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 99, on the emergency admissions action plan, when he plans to publish the intensive care unit-bed review. [20363]

  Mr. Hague
  When all the substantive replies to the intensive care review have been received from health authorities, these will be assessed to establish whether the Department needs to offer further guidance to the NHS in Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 March.Official Report, column 99, what action he has taken in respect of the undertaking given in the emergency medical admissions plan to co-ordinate the general practitioner out-of-hours scheme. [20364]

  Mr. Hague
  Action to co-ordinate GP out-of-hours emergency admissions and improve communications with trusts and health authorities remains a matter for the appropriate family health services authority or its successor after 1 April 1996. This is covered in the statement of fees and allowances.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 99, on the emergency admissions action plan, if the community hospital working group is functioning; and what advice he will be seeking from it in relation to support roles to district general hospitals. [20365]

  Mr. Hague
  The review by the community hospital working group is nearing completion. Advice will be issued to the service shortly, including guidance on how community hospitals in Wales can most appropriately support district general hospitals.
  564

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training Agencies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employment training agencies have been created since 1979; and at what costs. [17209]

  Mr. Paice
  Since 1990, we have set up 74 training and enterprise councils in England and they are responsible for arranging provision locally of a range of training activities. No information is collected about the number of training providers under contract to training and enterprise councils.

  Student Statistics
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proportion of(a) male and (b) female students undertaking (i) science subjects and (ii) arts subjects, (1) nationally and (2) for Staffordshire education authority. [19490]

  Mrs. Gillan
  All pupils of statutory school age are required to follow the national curriculum, which covers both science and arts subjects. After the age of 16, students can choose from a wide range of academic and vocational courses up to degree level and beyond. Information on the total number of male and female students following science and arts subjects under all these qualifications is unavailable either nationally or locally.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC the number of current members of the board representing(a) under 50 employees, (b) under 20 employees and (c) under 10 employees; and what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the current arrangement. [19634]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise council directors do not represent particular interests; they are appointed as individuals. The TEC has been concerned to provide a balanced board, by geography, industry and commercial sector; the board is currently in the process of electing a new member.

  Grant-maintained School Ballots
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions she proposes to hold with Sheffield local education authority in respect of the prevention of interference with, and intimidation of, governors and parents during grant-maintained ballots. [20039]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None. The Government look to the local education authority and all other parties concerned in a ballot for grant-maintained status to ensure a fair and balanced debate for governors and parents. The Government have sought to promote this through the introduction of a code of practice on information in GM ballots. My officials have from time to time written to all chief education officers about these issues.
  565
  In addition, all formal complaints about ballots are investigated under section 31(1) of the 1993 Education Act.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines her Department has issued to parents, governors and local education authorities to ensure fair and accurate information is available for grant-maintained status ballots. [20187]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Ballots for grant-maintained status are held under a voluntary code of practice which states that information for governors and parents should be objective, accurate and balanced. The code is available to parents through a departmental publication—"How to Become a Grant-Maintained School"—and was commended to governors in circular 18/93. An almost identical code has been promulgated to local education authorities by the Society of Education Officers.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she proposes to take(a) in respect of the use of misleading information during balloting for grant-maintained status and (b) to ensure that balloting can take place without the interference or intimidation of governors and parents. [20038]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government are committed to ensuring a fair and balanced debate for governors and parents in ballots for grant-maintained status. A number of measures are already in place to help secure this. The voluntary code of practice on information in ballots for grant-maintained status is binding on LEA officials, officials from the Department and employees of the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation. Measures in the 1993 Education Act enable a ballot to be declared void and re-run where it appears that there are irregularities in the conduct of the ballot or the outcome has been significantly influenced by the circulation to parents of materially misleading information.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision will be made for the continued participation of the voluntary sector under the European social fund objective 3 programme for the period 1997 to 1999. [10029]

  Mr. Forth
  The voluntary sector will continue to be a partner in the European social fund objective 3 programme for the period 1997 to 1999 being able to bid for funds and having an involvement in the selection of projects.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure that the voluntary sector organisations in receipt of grant aid under the European social fund objective 3 programme do not face a shortfall in funding in respect of 1994 payments as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate between sterling and the ecu. [20031]

  Mr. Forth
  The 1994 final payment has been received from the European Commission in ecu but when converted into sterling it is insufficient to pay all final claims. Officials in the Department's European social fund unit are working with the Commission to try to make up the shortfall. Project providers are being asked to 566
  supply information about the pattern of expenditure during 1994, which should help the European social fund unit to make a more favourable calculation of the sums due to Great Britain. The reaction of Commission officials to our approaches to date has been constructive.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to change the allocation of resources and method of distribution under the European social fund objective 3 programme. [20028]

  Mr. Forth
  Officials have been asked to report by April on the possibility of managing the selection of European social fund objective 3 projects on a regional basis. Any changes will be agreed with the Commission as part of the 1997–99 programme and will involve European social fund partners.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the European Commission in relation to delays in payments to voluntary sector organisations under the European social fund. [20030]

  Mr. Forth
  I have had no recent discussions with representatives of the European Commission about delays in payment of European social fund money to voluntary sector organisations. Officials in the Department's European social fund unit do, however, meet their counterparts in the European Commission on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues including delays in payment.

  Sheffield Local Education Authority
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of local education authority funding is retained for administration by Sheffield local education authority; how much of this was delegated to support services for each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [20040]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out Sheffield local education authority's expenditure in the last thee years, as a percentage of its total education spending, on(a) management and administration and services strategy and regulation; (b) inspection and advisory services; (c) other education support services, including the education welfare service, educational psychology services and operational units; and (d) school catering services.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a)

  3.4

  3.4

  3.9

  (b)

  0.5

  0.2

  0.4

  (c)

  2.3

  2.6

  2.7

  (d)

  3.7

  4.2

  4.0

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people who have been found capable of work under the all-work test of capacity who have subsequently signed on as unemployed receive(a) unemployment benefit only, (b) income support only and (c) unemployment benefit and income support; [20163]
  567
  (2) how many people who have been found capable of work under the all-work test of capacity have subsequently signed on as unemployed (a) in total and (b) for each of the months since April 1995. [20164]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 12 March 1996.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of people found capable of work under the All Work Test who subsequently sign on as unemployed. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  In the period April 1995 to January 1996, 27,719 people disallowed Income Support following the All Work Test have made a claim to unemployment benefits. A monthly breakdown of these claims is attached. No figures are available as to whether these people are receiving unemployment benefit only, Income Support only or unemployment benefit and Income Support.
  I hope this is helpful.

  April 1995 to January 1996

  Month

  Number of claims

  Cumulative total

  April

  —

  —

  May

  428

  428

  June

  518

  938

  July

  1,448

  2,386

  August

  2,880

  5,266

  September

  3,708

  8,974

  October

  4,519

  13,493

  November

  5,059

  18,552

  December

  4,366

  22,918

  January

  4,801

  27,719

  Temporary School Buildings
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list for each education authority in England and in total the proportion of temporary buildings as a percentage of school buildings as a whole; [20489]

  (2) if she will list for each education authority in England (a) the number and types of temporary school buildings which have been in use in each year since 1990 and (b) the purpose for which these units have been used. [20490]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20101]
  568
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Name

  Statutory base

  Publish advice

  Publish annual report

  National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities

  Yes

  Yes

  No1

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group

  No

  No

  No

  Women's National Commission

  No

  Yes

  No2

  Committees for the Employment of People with Disabilities

  Yes

  No

  No

  Supported Employment Consultative Group

  No

  No

  No

  1 A periodic report of activities is placed in the Library of both Houses of Parliament.

  2 An annual report is produced which is not laid before Parliament, but is sent voluntarily to Members of Parliament.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what values of payments were outstanding within her Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20477]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department. The Department does not maintain the statistical information in this form.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about plans to close the careers service office in Hulme, Manchester; and what discussions she has held with the local careers service. [19839]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations about the closure of any careers service office in the Hulme area of Manchester.

  The existing contract between the Department and the careers service provider in Manchester recognised the need to review a number of issues, including premises. This review has now been completed and proposals arising from it will be a matter for discussion with the Department by the end of March 1996.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what directions she has issued to the careers service in Manchester, Salford, Trafford and Tameside about the need to maintain levels of service in inner-city areas. [19838]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: The service expected from careers service providers is specified in "The Requirements and Guidance for Careers Service Providers." This describes the service required, the principals on which it should be based, and the standards to which it must be delivered.
  569
  Substantial amounts of careers service activity takes place within schools, and so is delivered to students in situ. For other clients, services should be available at times which are convenient to them, prominently displayed, and within reasonable daily travelling distance. These matters are clearly set out in the contract between the Department and the respective careers service provider. They include a strong focus on meeting clients' needs, taking into account any relevant factors impinging on clients in inner-city areas.

  Maritime Skills
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent in the last financial year on courses to provide education and training in maritime skills; and where such courses are provided at(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) tertiary levels. [20195]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: Such information is not held centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all cases since 1987 in which his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19464]

  Mr. Norris
  Since 1987 the Department of Transport has bought computer capacity from:

  (a) other Departments—NIL.

  (b) the Private Sector:

  Dell Computer Corporation

  Electronic Data Systems

  P and P Corporate Systems Limited

  The value of the contracts is classified "commercial in confidence".

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19424]

  Mr. Norris
  Between January 1994 to date—the only period for which figures are available—1,707 letters from hon. Members have been referred to agencies for response. This represents approximately 3 per cent. of the total.

  With regard to point (b), I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 12 February 1996, Official Report, column 421.
  570

  Fishes Royal Wreck
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the nature of the responsibility that the receiver of wrecks has for Fishes Royal. [19879]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 12 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the Receiver of Wreck.
  The Receiver of Wreck is responsible for the disposal of "Fishes Royal" which become stranded in or on the shores of the United Kingdom. Since 1993 this has been a responsibility of the Coastguard Agency.

  Coastguard
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the Coastguard's national constituency plan. [19880]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 12 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the Coastguard Agency's Marine Pollution Control Unit's National Contingency Plan.
  A copy of this document is already in the House of Commons' Library.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of compensation for previous investments Railtrack will be required to pay to local authorities and passenger transport authorities before privatisation; and if this amount will be included in the writing off of Railtrack's debts before privatisation. [19861]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board executed deeds of assumption in March 1994 to compensate passenger transport executives for the loss of pre-April 1994 lower costs that BR had charged in return for PTE capital grants. Deeds relating to infrastructure were transferred to Railtrack by way of the Railtrack transfer scheme in March 1994. Further deeds were executed by Railtrack in July 1995. In 1995–96, Railtrack made payments of £69.9 million to the PTEs, net of tax withholdings, under the deeds of assumption. Railtrack is currently scheduled to pay a further £5.2 million, net of tax withholdings, on 1 April 1996. Final details of the capital structure which Railtrack will take into the private sector have yet to be concluded

  Railway Contracts
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 485, what is the total number and value of contracts let by Railtrack to Hall and Tawse. [19895]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that Railtrack plc have awarded two planned maintenance and two call-off maintenance contracts to Hall and Tawse, having a value of circa £5 million.
  571

  St. Pancras Station
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last valuation was made of St. Pancras station; and what value was attached to the asset. [20304]

  Mr. Watts
  The last valuation of St. Pancras station was carried out for the British Rail Property Board in March 1995. Based on the capitalisation of station income, the existing use value of the station was estimated to be £3.7 million.

  Leicester Link Road Inquiry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations led him to restrict the remit of the Department of Transport inspector for the Leicester A46/47 link road public inquiry to the A46/47 link road only. [20041]

  Mr. Watts
  The remit of the inspector appointed to conduct the inquiries into Leicester county council's proposed A46/47 link road was that he should consider objections to, and representations about, the proposed orders. No restriction was made, apart from that made in every case, that the inspector should resist broadening his considerations into matters which are not directly involved with the proposed orders.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given to problems of induced traffic on new road schemes and their surrounding areas in the recent public inquiry into the Leicester A46/47 link road. [20042]

  Mr. Watts
  The issue of induced traffic was covered at the inquiries into Leicestershire county council's proposed A46/A47 link road. The Secretary of State is currently considering the inspector's report on those inquiries including the question of induced traffic.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken to relieve car parking problems in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [20075]

  Mr. Norris
  Detailed decisions about local parking policies and practice are matters for local authorities. The Government set the framework by issuing advice and guidance. Urban areas need adequate parking provision to cater for trips for which there is no realistic alternative form of transport. It is the Government's policy to encourage people to travel by other means—cycling, walking and public transport—where that option is open to them.

  Union Railways
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on recent developments relating to the work of Union Railways. [20324]

  Mr. Watts
  Union Railways is continuing its work in developing plans for the channel tunnel rail link. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 February, ownership of Union Railways will be transferred to London and Continental Railways as a result of the CTRL competition.
  572

  Wisconsin Central
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the value of the contract awarded to Wisconsin Central to(a) operate the royal train, (b) carry the Royal Mail and (c) run other aspects of the railway; [20496]

  (2) what period is covered by the contract awarded to Wisconsin Central to operate the royal train. [20497]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Braer Incident
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many claims, and for what amount, there were for compensation in respect of the Braer incident in the Shetlands; what percentage of such claims has been accepted by the insurers and, of those, what percentage has been settled; what is the percentage of the amount claimed that has been paid; and if he will make a statement. [20242]

  Mr. Norris
  Information on the total amount claimed is not held by the Department and is not readily available from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Records produced by the fund indicate that 1,950 claims have been made, some 1,700 or about 85 per cent. of these claims have been agreed and some 1,500 or about 75 per cent. have been paid. To date, £46.9 million has been paid.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to demand full compensation payments for all those who directly or indirectly have suffered financial loss as a result of the Sea Empress disaster; and if he will make a statement. [20248]

  Mr. Norris
  Officials of my Department have already made representations to the executive committee of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund for full payment of eligible claims for compensation, insofar as these payments are compatible with the international instruments which established the IOPC fund.

  Humber Sea Terminal Project
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding his Department's objections to European regional development fund funding for the Humber sea terminal project being proposed at Immingham. [20398]

  Mr. Norris
  A decision on whether my Department could support the provision of ERDF grant for this project will be made shortly. The decision will be based on the view the Department takes about whether such grant would cause substantial distortion of competition with other ports in Great Britain. The Government's successful ports policy over the past 15 years has been based on the avoidance of such distortion, and creating conditions in which ports can compete on an equal footing.
  573

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interest, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20107]

  Mr. Norris
  The following are the answers for the Department of Transport's only advisory, NDPB, the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee.

  (a) DPTAC does not hold public meetings.

  (b) Yes, but the Committee has not held a public consultation exercise since 1990.

  (c) Yes, it does conduct exercises with outside commercial interests.

  (d), (e) and (f) No, it does not publish a register of interests, agendas of meetings or minutes of meetings.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20090]

  Mr. Norris
  The following are the answers for the Department of Transport's only advisory NDPB, the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee.

  (a) DPTAC does not publish advice to the Government.

  (b) and (c) It publishes an annual report which is laid before Parliament under a statutory requirement.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles have occurred in each of the last five years arising from the driver having lost his spectacles or contact lenses during an emergency. [20361]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20486]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available.

  North-West Main Line
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 February,Official Report, columns 730–31, if he will list the improvements currently planned for the North-West main line and the likely date of implementation; and if he will make a statement on proposals for (a) improved journey times between Manchester and London, (b) improved passenger access to cross-channel services and (c) improved customer comfort and convenience on the Manchester to London line. [19884]
  574
  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's core modernisation programme for the west coast main line includes the introduction of a modern train signalling system, an improved power supply system, and track renewal. Railtrack intends to let a contract for development of the signalling system by the end of March with contracts for the bulk of the modernisation to be let during 1996.

  Beyond the core modernisation, Railtrack is also considering possible upgrade options for the line which would include opportunities for faster trains and improved journey times between London and Manchester.

  London and Continental Railways proposals for the channel tunnel rail link include an action plan for enhancing Eurostar services from the regions which would include a direct twin-track connection to the west coast main line.

  InterCity west coast is currently examining proposals with private leasing companies for the refurbishment of passenger coaches.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the national regulations, orders and rules which apply to bovine animals of under 15 days of age. [19888]

  Mrs. Browning
  There are nearly 3,500 provisions in UK legislation relating to animals, many of which will apply to calves. These provisions can be found in volume 2 of the current editions of Halsbury's Statutes and Halsbury's Statutory Instruments, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  The only legislation which includes provisions referring to bovine animals under 15 days of age is European Council directive 64/432/EEC, which is implemented in Great Britain by the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of his inquiry into the allegations contained in the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme on the inspection of calves exported through Dover. [19896]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 5 March 1996,Official Report column 126.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) bovine, (b) ovine and (c) porcine animals were rejected at the point of export health certification as unfit to travel for each month of 1995. [19887]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of cattle, sheep and pigs rejected at the point of export certification as unfit to travel for each month of 1995 is summarised in the table:

  Month

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  January

  171

  987

  101

  February

  89

  523

  83

  March

  135

  367

  101

  575

  Month

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  April

  134

  323

  93

  May

  180

  122

  153

  June

  117

  123

  121

  July

  129

  270

  106

  August

  178

  737

  45

  September

  117

  725

  54

  October

  64

  812

  123

  November

  56

  621

  74

  December

  50

  676

  95

  Cattle and Sheep Quotas
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom quota for(a) beef, (b) cows and (c) sheep; and if he will indicate the number in each case allocated to (i) less favoured areas and (ii) non-less favoured areas in each of the component parts of the United Kingdom. [19827]

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no quotas for beef. The approximate amount of quota available to the UK for sheep and Buckler cows is set out in the table.

  In thousands of quota units

  LFA

  Lowland

  Total

  Sheep

  England

  3,639

  4,974

  8,613

  Scotland

  3,876

  405

  4,280

  Wales

  4,823

  499

  5,322

  Northern Ireland

  1,118

  308

  1,426

  Total

  13,455

  6,185

  19,640

  Suckler cows

  England

  279

  448

  727

  Scotland

  449

  77

  527

  Wales

  189

  22

  211

  Northern Ireland

  279

  51

  330

  Total

  1,197

  598

  1,795

  Sub-totals may not add up to owing to rounding.

  Radiation (Livestock)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of which areas restricted as a result of radiation from Chernobyl, livestock are classified as not fit for human consumption. [19659]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following the latest derestrictions, which took effect from 17 January 1996, about 122,600 hectares of land in the UK remain subject to statutory restrictions to prevent the sale of sheepmeat containing levels of radiocaesium in excess of an action level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram. These restrictions apply in parts of north Wales, parts of west Cumbria, parts of County Antrim and County Londonderry in Northern Ireland, and parts of Dumfries and Galloway, Strathclyde and Central regions of Scotland.

  Sheep grazing these areas are the only livestock affected by the restrictions. The mark and release scheme ensures that radiocaesium levels in sheep are at an acceptable level before the meat reaches the human food chain.
  576

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the pattern of voting in the Council of Ministers required to amend common fisheries policy regulations on quota hopping. [19999]

  Mr. Baldry
  The regulations implementing the common fisheries policy are based on article 43 of the EC treaty under which decisions are taken by qualified majority voting.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Her Majesty's Government's objectives for the reform of the common fisheries policy are for 1997; and if he will meet hon. Members from fisheries constituencies before the IGC to discuss those objectives. [19998]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am always happy to meet hon. Members from fishing constituencies from wherever in the United Kingdom to discuss fisheries issues and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is similarly happy to meet hon. Members from Scottish fishing constituencies.

  The Government will continue to pursue initiatives to achieve improvements in the way that the common fisheries policy operates. These include working with the industry to improve conservation measures and seeking to ensure that the fishing opportunities arising from national quotas provide real benefits to the fishing communities of the flag member state.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation and the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations to discuss(a) the common fisheries policy and (b) its place in the IGC discussions in March. [19996]

  Mr. Baldry
  During the Council of Fisheries Ministers of 21 to 22 December 1995, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I met both the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss those aspects of the common fisheries policy on the agenda of the Council. We shall next be meeting the two organisations together on 14 March.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legal advice has been sought by his Department on making amendments to the European treaties in connection with quota hopping at the IGC. [19997]

  Mr. Baldry
  Any necessary legal advice will be obtained for any amendments to the European treaties put forward by the Government. It is not customary, however, to disclose such advice.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20475]
  577
  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not readily available and could not be produced without disproportionate cost. MAFF aims to pay all invoices within 30 days of the receipt or in accordance with terms agreed with suppliers. Currently 85 per cent. of all payments are made by the due date.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18650]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive a copy of the forthcoming European Commission discussion document on vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements; and what plans he has to ensure that(a) copies of that document are available immediately upon its publication to (i) the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy, (ii) other organisations representing practitioners of nutritional therapy and (iii) organisations representing consumers of dietary supplements, and (b) British consumers' access to such supplements is not adversely affected by any directive arising out of the consultation on that document. [19671]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The timetable for the production of the proposed discussion document on vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements is in the hands of the European Commission. I understand that it is unlikely to be issued before the summer. The Ministry has undertaken to consult fully with all interested parties, including the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy and organisations representing consumers of dietary supplements, as soon as the document is received. The consultation exercise will also be announced in the food safety information bulletin.

  The Government's policy is to ensure that consumers have as much choice as possible in their access to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements, provided that public health is not compromised. If any formal proposal for legislation on the sale of dietary supplements were to be made following discussion of the document, the United Kingdom position would reflect this policy.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what drafts of the forthcoming European Commission discussion document on vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements his Department has received; and if he will place copies of these drafts in the Library. [19672]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: My Department has not received any drafts of the forthcoming European Commission discussion document on vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements.
  578
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements. [19673]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The Government's policy is to ensure that consumers have as much choice as possible in their access to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements, provided that public health is not compromised.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of his Department in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19798]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The numbers of qualified engineers employed in my Department in the headquarters division of flood and coastal defence, excluding those based outside London, are as follows:

  At 1 March:

  1991: 8

  1992: 6

  1993: 7

  1994: 7

  1995: 7

  196: 6

  A number of those employed in the headquarters building and estates management division also hold engineering qualifications.

  The numbers of full-time equivalent staff employed in the scientific grades in the headquarters divisions now represented by the chief scientist's group and the food safety and science group are as follows:

  At 1 March

  11991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Assistant scientific officer

  12

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Scientific officer

  37

  17

  14

  18

  12

  13.6

  Higher scientific officer

  40.5

  31

  28.5

  32

  38.5

  34.8

  Senior scientific officer

  28

  33

  31.5

  32

  34.5

  29.4

  Principal scientific officer

  27.5

  21

  21

  33.5

  25.5

  20.4

  1 Figures for 1991 include staff based at the food science laboratory, Norwich.

  For open structure grades above grade 7, records do not separately identify posts held by staff with scientific qualifications. However, it is possible to give the following breakdown for senior grades in the headquarters divisions of the chief scientist's group and the food safety and science group as of 1 March 1996:

  Postholders whose qualifications include a scientific degree or equivalent

  Grade 6

  16

  Grade 5

  5

  Grade 3

  2

  These figures include those on fixed-term appointments, but exclude any employed on a consultancy basis.

  All the figures given apply to core Department headquarters divisions only. They do not include the large numbers of staff in other areas who hold scientific or

  579
  engineering qualifications, for example, those in the directorate of fisheries research, many of the employees of the agencies, veterinary surgeons, economists and statisticians. It would be disproportionately expensive to list all of these.

HEALTH

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, living in national health service hospitals or residential accommodation who currently receive the mobility component of the disability living allowance. [18397]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health does not collect this information centrally.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on how the changes to the disability living allowance regulations have affected current NHS patients. [18410]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with disabilities are members of national health service trust boards(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the overall total. [18399]

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with disabilities are members of NHS trust boards; and what percentage this is of the total. [18391]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the representation on health boards of disabled people. [18401]

  Mr. Malone
  None. People from all sections of the community are encouraged to apply for non-executive appointments to national health service boards and several with disabilities have been appointed. They represent the interest of all sections of the community.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients in England are currently covered by general practitioner fundholders; and what the figures will be after 1 April. [18400]

  Mr. Malone
  Some 41 per cent. of the population in England is currently registered with a general practitioner fundholder. We expect this to increase to more than 50 per cent. from April.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the Care in the Community (Direct Payments) Bill from groups of, and for, people with disabilities. [18402]
  580
  Mr. Bowis
  Some 300 responses have been received to our consultation paper.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure an adequate future supply of general practitioners in the national health service. [18403]

  Mr. Malone
  The goal of the Government's medical staffing policy is to enable the national health service to secure an adequate and affordable supply of appropriately trained doctors in each sector and/or specialty, in order to provide a cost-effective, quality service to patients. We accepted the main recommendation in the second report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee, June 1995, to increase medical school intakes to 4,970 by 2000, which will mean an increase of 15 per cent. during the 1990s.

  Clinical Staff
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends taking to improve the morale of clinical staff in the NHS. [18405]

  Mr. Malone
  It is the responsibility of local employers to ensure good morale is maintained within the clinical work force. They now have greater freedoms than ever before to develop local employment strategies and implement flexible working arrangements which reflect and reward the valuable contribution of highly motivated and skilled staff.

  Clinical Services
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of regional health authorities to discuss the private management of clinical services. [18406]

  Mr. Malone
  We regularly meet the chairmen of the regional health authorities who are members of the national health service policy board to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to review the operation of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. [18407]

  Mr. Malone
  I am satisfied that the reforms introduced by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are operating effectively. NHS performance continues to improve. Since 1990, the average waiting time has been halved from eight months to just under four months. Patient activity has grown by around 5 per cent. each year since the reforms, significantly greater than before.

  NHS Funding (Nottingham)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amount by which current funding of the NHS in Nottingham is under target; and what action he plans to meet the target. [18408]
  581
  Mr. Horam
  Nottingham health authority will be £7.4 million or 2.74 per cent. under target in 1996–97.

  We plan to move all health authorities to their weighted capitation target as soon as it is practicable.

  Royal Sussex County Hospital
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects phase I of the building programme for the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton to be completed; and what is the estimated cost of the work in current prices. [18409]

  Mr. Horam
  The building is expected to be completed in the late summer of 1998, and to cost £61 million at current prices.

  Dermatology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is proposing to advance the expenditure on dermatology and skin-related diseases in the health service. [18411]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities in England are given general allocations for hospital and community health services to purchase health care services for their resident population. It is for individual health authorities to decide the level and type of services purchased, taking account of local circumstances, and within the framework of national policies and priorities.

  Ecstasy-related Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of deaths in the past five years in which Ecstasy was(a) mentioned as a contributory cause and (b) identified as the principal cause. [18412]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave him on 19 February, column 34 and the reply that I gave him on 1 March, column 764.

  Injured Suspects
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to hospitals about giving the police the names and addresses of injured suspects. [18413]

  Mr. Horam
  All national health service bodies and staff have a legal duty to protect patient confidentiality and health information given or obtained for one purpose should not usually be used for a different purpose without the express consent or implied authorisation of the provider of the information. This duty of confidence can be overridden, most commonly when considered necessary in the public interest and this may include circumstances where the disclosure is relevant to the prevention or detection of serious crime. Any decision to do so would need to be taken locally after full consideration of the individual details of the case.
  582
  This reinforced in guidance issued to the NHS on 7 March, "Protection and Use of Patient Information", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Casualty Departments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the temporary closure of casualty departments. [18404]

  Mr. Horam
  The organisation of hospitals locally is a matter for health authorities and national health service trusts. Temporary closures of accident and emergency departments will occasionally be necessary but should be kept to a minimum, with alternative arrangements being made with neighbouring hospitals and the ambulance service.

  Transplant Surgery
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the number of people awaiting suitable donations prior to transplant surgery for each organ required; what is the average length of time waited; how many and what percentage of people die while waiting; and if he will provide figures by(a) region, (b) age and (c) sex; [18801]

  (2) how many organs offered for donation were used; what percentage this was of the total offered; and what is his estimate of the potential number of organ donors in each of the last three full years for which figures are available. [18800]

  Mr. Horam
  The tables show the information requested.

  (1) Breakdown of current (1 March 1996) waiting list for each organ

  (a) By region

  Region

  Kidney

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/lung

  Liver

  Northern and Yorkshire

  497

  26

  62

  11

  20

  Trent

  445

  40

  14

  2

  —

  Anglia and Oxford

  375

  9

  21

  25

  25

  North Thames

  883

  112

  78

  119

  21

  South Thames

  568

  27

  8

  1

  33

  South West

  452

  -

  -

  -

  -

  West Midlands

  556

  12

  6

  5

  40

  North West

  624

  40

  20

  3

  -

  Wales

  132

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Northern Ireland

  97

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Scotland

  559

  20

  -

  -

  6

  Republic of Ireland

  92

  23

  -

  1

  12

  Total

  5,280

  309

  209

  167

  157

  (b) By sex

  Sex

  Kidney

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/Lung

  Liver

  Female

  2,172

  40

  117

  92

  67

  Male

  3,105

  268

  92

  75

  90

  Unknown

  3

  1

  -

  -

  -

  Total

  5,280

  309

  209

  167

  157

  583

  (c) By age (decade)

  Age (years)

  Kidney

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/Lung

  Liver

  0–9

  53

  14

  -

  12

  18

  10–19

  144

  8

  7

  46

  12

  20–29

  626

  11

  22

  50

  13

  30–39

  1,059

  16

  21

  30

  18

  40–49

  1,174

  67

  66

  20

  32

  50–59

  1,236

  151

  72

  9

  46

  60–69

  822

  42

  21

  -

  18

  70–79

  162

  -

  -

  -

  -

  80–89

  4

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Total

  5,280

  309

  209

  167

  157

  Waiting time (days)

  Kidney

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/Lung

  Liver

  Median

  387

  177

  351

  560

  26

  (95 per cent. Confidence Interval

  373–04

  157–203

  288–401

  452–686

  23–29)

  Based on figures for 1989–92.

  (2) Patients dying whilst on the waiting list in 1994

  Kidney

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/Lung

  Liver

  Number of patients

  1197

  57

  19

  23

  46

  1 This is the figure for 1993. The figure for number of patients dying whilst on the waiting list for a kidney can be misleading as a proportion will die as a result of causes unrelated to their renal condition.

  Breakdown of number of offered organs and their usage in 1995

  Organ

  Number offered

  Number transplanted

  Percentage transplanted

  Kidney

  1,987

  1,799

  90.5 per cent.

  Heart

  885

  397

  44.9 per cent.

  Lung

  1,250

  274

  21.9 per cent.

  Livers

  927

  701

  75.6 per cent.

  Hearts and lungs have been simplified to individual organs. In practice, they are often offered in combination and sometimes transplanted in combination—that is, the heart and lungs from a donor can be offered as a "block" and the heart transplanted and the lungs not, and so on. Also, on a few occasions, a liver was transplanted (as lobes) into two separate patients. The reason for the non-use of donated organs, in the vast majority of cases is clinical unsuitability.

  It is not known what the potential number of organ donors was for the last three years.

  Source:

  UK Transport Support Service Authority.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19033]
  584
  Mr. Horam
  For the purpose of the table, items stolen and otherwise unaccounted for are combined because it is not possible in all cases to distinguish one from the other. The losses of information technology equipment have occurred against the background of a substantial increase in the Department's provision of such equipment, and an increasing frequency of break-ins by professional criminals in search of computers and their components. The Department constantly reviews its security measures in the light of these losses.

  Calender year

  IT items (number)

  IT items (estimated cost) £

  Other items (number)

  Other items (estimated cost) £

  1991

  6

  7,460

  14

  3,340

  1992

  11

  25,710

  -

  -

  1993

  55

  93,080

  27

  3,880

  1994

  136

  147,358

  20

  1,852

  1995

  350

  231,249

  31

  771

  Items valued at £5,000 or more are a Toshiba T6600/DX2 laptop computer, cost £5,500; a Sun Sparcserver (including disk and memory) cost £25,590; a RAID Array, cost £23,120 and a Toshiba 3200 laptop with Feline Analyser Board, cost £8,000.

  NHS Staff Shortages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of qualified staff he has identified as being in short supply in respect of NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [19257]

  Mr. Malone
  For nurses, midwives and health visitors we agree with the findings of the national pay review body, which weighed carefully all the evidence presented and was not convinced that there is a general nationwide shortage of nursing staff. The Government accept that there are local difficulties and problems with particular specialties for some non-medical staff and drew attention to these in the 1995 annual planning guidance. Training commissions are likely to rise again in 1996–97. The Government welcome the pay review body's view that local pay may be part of the solution to these problems.

  In relation to professions allied to medicine, the Government accept that demand exceeds supply in some areas for some professions allied to medicine. Good employers will concentrate on establishing flexible recruitment and retention policies and training commissions are likely to rise again in 1996–97.

  In respect of the medical work force we are aware of the difficulties in recruiting to consultant posts in certain specialties. In 1996–97, £5.7 million will be provided to help create at least 300 new specialist registrar posts and to improve access to training for doctors wishing to become consultants. The available resources will be targeted where needs are greatest. Where there are isolated problems local problems of recruitment and retention, moves towards local pay determination will encourage employers to use pay flexibility to tackle them.

  In the long term, the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee to increase the medical student intake target by 500–11 per cent—to reach, 4,970 by 2000.
  585

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Heath what is the average time of waiting between a child being referred for speech therapy, an assessment taking place and referral for treatment. [19741]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children and adults are currently in receipt of speech therapy in the city of Liverpool; how many requests for treatment are outstanding; how many assessments are undertaken each month; what is the ration of speech therapists to patients in need of speech therapy; what funding is currently available for paediatric and adult services; what is the shortfall between demand and provision of services; and if he will make a statement. [19761]

  Mr. Bowls
  The number of new episodes of care (initial contacts) for speech and language therapy in 1994–95 delivered at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital national health service trust, the Royal Liverpool Children's national health service trust, Broadgreen Hospital national health service trust and the North Mersey Community national health service trust was 4,348.

  Breakdown by age is as follows:

  Age group

  Number

  0–2

  486

  3–4

  971

  5–9

  988

  10–15

  227

  16–54

  435

  55–64

  255

  65–74

  388

  75–84

  422

  85 and over

  176

  Total all ages

  4,348

  The other information is not available centrally.

  Estimated number of discharges from NHS hospitals of patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses by duration of spell

  England

  11984

  11985

  11986

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Total

  30,080

  100

  30,600

  100

  30,400

  100

  Under 1 week

  4,220

  14

  4,560

  15

  4,320

  14

  1 week—under 1 month

  11,030

  37

  11,440

  37

  11,260

  37

  1 month—under 2 months

  6,460

  21

  6,410

  21

  6,310

  21

  2 months—under 3 months

  2,470

  8

  2,560

  8

  2,550

  8

  3 months—under 6 months

  2,440

  8

  2,450

  8

  2,510

  8

  6 months—under 1 year

  1,330

  4

  1,290

  4

  1,390

  5

  1 year—under 2 years

  720

  2

  560

  2

  610

  2

  2 years—under 5 years

  530

  2

  440

  1

  400

  1

  5 years or more

  900

  3

  890

  3

  1,030

  3

  Source:

  1984 to 1986: Mental Health Enquiry.

  1 Data for 1984 to 1986 are taken from the Mental Health Enquiry and are on a different basis to those for subsequent years—they include patients diagnosed as suffering from paranoia. There were 3,040 such patients in 1984. Data from 1987–89 are unreliable.
  586

  Secure Units
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities among the 68 whose plans anticipate the development of comprehensive mental health services before the end of 1996–97 which(a) will and (b) will not be providing local secure units. [19820]

  Mr. Bowis
  The regional offices of the national health service executive will be closely monitoring the progress of all health authorities towards developing the full spectrum of care required for a comprehensive mental health service. This includes commissioning of care for patients in local units, or access to specialist secure units which may be located out of the patient's home area.

  Tri-Star Ambulances
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service ambulance trusts currently maintain Tri-Star vehicles of the chassis type alleged to exceed allowable load ratings; and, for each trust(a) how many of such vehicles are in use and (b) how long such vehicles have spent withdrawn from service in each of the last three years; and what are the corresponding figures for (i) other Tri-Star vehicles and (ii) non-Tri-Star vehicles. [19688]

  Mr. Horam
  The East Anglian ambulance national health service trust and/or its predecessors have purchased 39 Tri-Star vehicles, of which 19 have been withdrawn from service since January 1995 pending precautionary modifications to the chassis. The remaining 20 were different versions of the vehicle and continue in use. Other information requested is not available centrally.

  Schizophrenia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number and percentage of discharges of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia by length of stay from 1984 until latest available date [19822]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the table.
  587

  1990–91

  1991–91

  1992–95

  1993–94

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Total

  29,760

  100

  29,910

  100

  31,210

  100

  29,750

  100

  Under one week

  4,620

  16

  4,770

  16

  5,170

  17

  5,070

  17

  One week-under one month

  10,620

  36

  10,690

  36

  11,160

  36

  10,240

  35

  One month-under two months

  5,540

  19

  5,730

  19

  5,940

  19

  5,810

  19

  Two months-under three months

  2,460

  8

  2,560

  9

  2,800

  9

  2,640

  9

  Three months-under six months

  2,850

  10

  2,750

  9

  2,910

  9

  2,990

  10

  Six months-under one year

  1,430

  5

  1,470

  5

  1,420

  5

  1,350

  5

  One year-under two years

  590

  2

  560

  2

  590

  2

  580

  2

  Two years-under five years

  460

  2

  480

  2

  380

  1

  290

  1

  Five years or more

  1,190

  4

  900

  3

  860

  3

  460

  2

  Source:

  1990–91 and subsequent years: Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of fatalities caused by the use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in each year since 1979. [19314]

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

  Mental Health Information
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what form the quarterly monitoring of mental health information by the NHS executive will take. [19821]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1996–97, the Department will continue to monitor levels of hospital and community activity for the mentally ill. In the coming year, this is to be complimented by monitoring indicators related to specific aspects of policy including care planning; readmission rates; mentally disordered offenders; and supervised discharge.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the 68 health authorities whose plans anticipate the development of comprehensive mental health services before the end of 1996–97 will have 24-hour nursed care in the community available for those residents who need it within that time scale. [19819]

  Mr. Bowis
  The regional offices of the national health service executive will be closely monitoring the progress of all health authorities towards developing the full spectrum of care required for a comprehensive mental health service.

  Section 64 Grants
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which organisations(a) in and (b) outside London grants will be paid from 1 April under the section 64 grant scheme; and of these which have not previously received such grants. [20358]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eccles (Ms Lestor) on 5 March, column 185.
  588

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete his reappraisal of the planned closure of Edgware general hospital accident and emergency department. [18597]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not undertaking a re-appraisal of the planned closure of Edgware hospitals accident and emergency department.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue further guidance to health authorities in respect of accident and emergency services. [18904]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 6 March, columns 356–68.

  NHS (Medical Techniques)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that services in the health service are based on the latest medical techniques. [18978]

  Mr. Horam
  Scientific evidence should provide the foundation for the planning and provision of effective health care. The national health service research and development programme, which began in 1991, has made substantial progress in increasing the knowledge base about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of NHS services. The health technology assessment part of the programme provides research-based evidence on the costs and effectiveness across a range of interventions performed throughout the NHS.

  The next step is to bridge the gap between research-based knowledge and routine clinical practice. Improving the effectiveness of clinical services is one of the medium-term priorities in the planning and priorities guidance for the NHS. On 10 January, the NHS executive published promoting clinical effectiveness, it sets out the resources available to health authorities, NHS trusts and clinicians responsible for developing strategies for clinical effectiveness and suggests ways in which resources may be put to best use. Copies of the booklet are available in the Library.
  589

  Working Children
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued on minimum wages, health and safety and number of hours worked, for working children; how this guidance is distributed; and what budget is available for any enforcement of minimum standards. [19370]

  Mr. Bowis
  No guidance has been issued on minimum wages. The restrictions on children's working hours are set in primary legislation and in local byelaws. All byelaws comply with guidance issued by the Department of Health to local authorities. Their enforcement is a matter for local authorities, and it is for them to devote to it the resources they deem necessary. Enforcement of health and safety legislation is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 293, what assessment he has made of the effects on patient care in south Manchester of the closure of four intensive care beds; and if he will make a statement. [20366]

  Mr. Horam
  Availability of services is the responsibility of district health authorities and discussions are continuing between Manchester health commission and South Manchester University Hospitals national health service trust to plan service provision for 1996–97.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent further representations his Department has had from, or on behalf of, people with haemophilia who, in the course of NHS treatment were infected with hepatitis C; what plans he has to compensate them or in cases where the patient has died from infection, their dependents; and if he will make a statement. [20367]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 5 December 1995, columns 130–31, since when, Ministers have received 34 further letters about payments to people who have developed hepatitis C through blood or blood products. Not all these letters were necessarily concerned solely or primarily with haemophiliacs.

  As we have made clear in recent debates and in response to questions, the Government have great sympathy with those who may have been inadvertently infected with hepatitis C through national health service treatment, but as no fault or negligence on the part of the NHS has been proved, we have no plans to make special payments. Our view remains that the best way for the Government to help is to encourage research, and best treatment for those infected as well as supporting voluntary groups working with those infected. This we are already doing.
  590
  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths among people with haemophilia who in the course of NHS treatment were infected with hepatitis C at the latest date for which figures are available. [20368]

  Mr. Horam
  Figures for deaths of people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C are not collected centrally by Government. I understand from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre directors that the cause of death of 14 out of the 159 haemophilia patients known to have died in 1994, was shown as liver disease, of which hepatitis C may have been the cause.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20480]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Primary Care-led NHS
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop a primary care-led NHS. [18390]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioner fundholders have already demonstrated the benefits to patients of a primary care-led national health service. The new health authorities will be responsible for working with GPs and their teams to improve services across the range of primary and secondary care. The listening programme, on which we are currently engaged, will build on these strengths.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) he will seek an apology from the European Commissioner responsible for the decision to allocate funds to enable CSV Media to send condoms on St. Valentine's day to Members of Parliament throughout the European Union; [20507]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require the European Commission AIDS unit to promote sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity within it, and the avoidance of injected drugs, as the most effective means of avoiding the contracting of AIDS; and if he will make a statement. [20508]

  Mr. Horam
  We believe that, like other public bodies, it is important that the European Commission AIDS unit communicates the means of avoiding HIV transmission in a manner which is scientifically accurate and respects the personal and cultural sensitivities of the target audience. I share entirely the hon. Member's concern that the St. Valentine's day initiative was inappropriate and will ensure that this view is made known to the organisations involved.
  591

  Heroin Addicts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of heroin addicts registered, in each of the last five years by district health authority, family health services authority, regional health authority and nationally. [19232]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: The information available centrally by district, regions and nationally will be placed in the Library. Information by family health services authority is not available.

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the probability of an ectopic pregnancy being created in a treatment cycle using(a) frozen embryos and (b) fresh embryos. [19789]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: As recorded in the records of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the latest available data are from 1993. This suggests that the risk of an ectopic pregnancy following fresh embryo transfer is seven per 1,000 patients; the risk following frozen embryo transfers five per 1,000 patients.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Agency Computer Systems
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees have been(a) dismissed and (b) faced other disciplinary action for unauthorised access to agency computer systems in (i) the Benefits Agency, (ii) the Child Support Agency, (iii) the Contributions Agency, (iv) the Information Technology Services Agency, (v) the Resettlement Agency and (vi) the War Pensions Agency since 1993. [19504]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Employees dismissed and disciplined for unauthorised access to computer systems in DSS agencies since 1993

  Dismissals

  Other disciplinary action

  Benefits Agency

  10

  1101

  Child Support Agency

  3

  11

  Contributions Agency

  5

  11

  Information Technology Services Agency

  0

  1

  Resettlement Agency

  0

  0

  War Pensions Agency

  2

  0

  Total

  20

  133

  1With approximately 70,000 staff, the Benefits Agency is by far the largest of the DSS Agencies. As the vast majority of their staff have access to computer systems, there is a proportionately higher number of incidents.

  Agencies (Confidential Information)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of(a) the Information Technology Services Agency, (b) the Resettlement Agency and (c) the War Pensions Agency have faced
  592
  (i) dismissal and (ii) other disciplinary action for the improper use of confidential information since 1993. [19505]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Action against staff for improper use of confidential information since 1993

  Dismissals

  Other disciplinary action

  Information Technology Services Agency

  0

  2

  Resettlement Agency

  0

  0

  War Pensions Agency

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  2

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average payment made to claimants under the discretionary social fund for funeral expenses since June 1995. [19882]

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

  Average size of awards (£) (excluding Northern Ireland)

  Award type

  Flowers/ wreath

  Funeral expenses

  Other

  Average payment

  Community care grant

  50.00

  62.80

  100.00

  70.93

  Budgeting loan

  37.15

  345.14

  71.27

  141.44

  Crisis loan

  57.33

  217.21

  —

  121.28

  Sub-total loans

  40.94

  316.71

  71.27

  137.56

  Total

  41.47

  291.32

  85.64

  130.67

  1. The information covers awards in the period between 5 June and 1 August 1995. It includes help with flowers/wreaths, funeral directors fees and other expenses.

  2. Funeral expenses covered by the regulated scheme were specifically excluded from the discretionary Fund from 2 August 1995.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) for each year since 1979 and (b) for the whole period since 1979 the extra revenue raised by changing the rate of employee national insurance contributions. [20241]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Year

  Employee National Insurance Rates1 (Percentage)

  Estimated change in contribution revenue2 (£ million)

  1979–80

  6.5

  -

  1980–81

  6.75

  3+225

  1981–82

  7.75

  3+1,020

  1982–83

  8.75

  3+1,096

  1983–84

  9.0

  3+285

  1984–85

  9.0

  -

  593

  Year

  Employee National Insurance Rates1 (Percentage)

  Estimated change in contribution revenue2 (£ million)

  1985–86

  9.0

  4-100

  7.0

  5.0 from October

  1986–87

  9.0

  -

  7.0

  5.0

  1987–88

  9.0

  -

  7.0

  5.0

  1988–89

  9.0

  -

  7.0

  5.0

  1989–90

  9.0

  5-l,000

  7.0

  5.0

  from October

  2.0

  9.0

  1990–91

  2.0

  -

  9.0

  1991–92

  2.0

  -

  9.0

  1992–93

  2.0

  -

  9.0

  1993–94

  2.0

  -

  9.0

  1994–95

  2.0

  3+1,914

  10.0

  1995–96

  2.0

  -

  10.0

  1 Not contracted-out rates shown.

  2 Figures show the change in revenue for the tax year in which the change in contribution rate was made.

  3 Estimates taken form Government Actuary reports on the various Contributions Re-rating Orders and Social Security (Contributions) Bills which introduced the changes in contribution rates.

  4 Reduced rates for employees were introduced form October 1985. Estimate taken from the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1985–86 and relates to part year only.

  5 Revised structure applied from October 1989. Estimate given in the Official Report, 24 April 1989 Col. 670 and relates to part year only.

  6 If the employees' contribution structure, rates and level of contracted-out rebates in force in 1979–80 had applied in 1995— 96, employees would have paid about £5.3 billion less in National Insurance contributions for that year.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 147, what account was taken of the impact on businesses in deciding not to make a compliance cost assessment for the Occupational Pension Schemes (Equal Treatment) Regulations. [18383]

  Mr. Heald
  The Occupational Pension Schemes (Equal Treatment) Regulations 1995 are concerned with the detailed application of existing equal treatment requirements which derive from article 119 of the treaty of Rome and were incorporated into domestic legislation by sections 62 to 66 of the Pensions Act 1995. The compliance cost assessment produced in April 1995 with the then Pensions Bill, explained that article 119 had direct effect in member states and any impact on industry arose directly from it. The impact of article 119 and clarificatory rulings was therefore excluded from that CCA.
  594
  However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) explained during the passage of the Bill, the European Court of Justice ruled that member states of the European Community may subject claims to equal treatment in occupational pensions to a domestic time limit. The Equal Treatment Regulations have the effect of applying the time limits for claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 to claims for equal treatment in occupational pensions schemes. This means that claims must be brought within six months of leaving the relevant employment. Successful claims for retrospective access to pension schemes are limited to a maximum two-year period for any backdated award.

  Rulings of the ECJ have also recognised certain exceptions from the equal treatments requirements. Accordingly, the regulations also make detailed provision as to the circumstances in which these exceptions may be relied upon. These provisions have significantly reduced the financial and administrative effect of the ECJ rulings on pension schemes and employers.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20092]

  Mr. Burt
  The advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department are listed in "Public Bodies 1995", with the exception of the National Disability Council which was created in January 1996, and all have a statutory basis; further information is in the table:

  (i) Under a Statutory Requirement

  (ii) Voluntarily

  (a) None

  The advice given to the Secretary of State by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board is published in its annual report.

  (b) The National Disability Council

  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

  (c) The National Disability Council

  None.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20109]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) None.

  (b) The Social Security Advisory Committee.

  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board also frequently consults with medical experts and outside organisations representing disabled people.

  All consultations are on a voluntary basis.

  595

  (c) The Social Security Advisory Committee, on a voluntary basis.

  The National Disability Council has a statutory duty to publish its proposals for a Code of Practice which may include consultation with outside commercial interests.

  (d) None.

  (e) None.

  (f) None.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to make a statement on his review of the role and funding of the Access Committee for England. [20360]

  Mr. Burt
  I am considering, with colleagues, the detailed issues involved and we hope to announce our decision in the near future.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20485]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Department of Social Security, in accordance with Treasury guidelines, pays its invoices within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice. A recent sample showed a 96 per cent. level of compliance with this guideline.

  To provide the information requested would involve further investigation and could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Earnings Top-up Pilot Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to commission independent research into the earnings top-up pilot scheme. [20608]

  Mr. Burt
  I have today awarded contracts to three research organisations—the Policy Studies Institute, the Institute for Employment Research and the Centre for Research in Social Policy. Over the next three years, these institutes will undertake a detailed programme of research to evaluate the effectiveness of the earnings top-up pilot.

  Earnings top-up is a new step in the Government's programme to strengthen incentives to work. The challenge is to discover whether topping up wages for

  Table 1: The Average Incomes of Pensioners 1979–1993 (by quintile-quintile l=lowest)—(£ per week July 1993 prices)

  (a) Single pensioners

  Income source

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  Earnings1

  0.40

  0.00

  0.10

  0.10

  0.40

  0.30

  3.80

  2.10

  25.40

  24.50

  6.00

  5.40

  Benefit income

  51.70

  60.80

  60.10

  73.10

  63.00

  84.70

  62.50

  83.20

  56.70

  84.80

  58.80

  77.30

  Investment

  2.10

  4.10

  2.20

  5.10

  2.40

  4.90

  7.00

  13.30

  33.40

  69.10

  9.40

  19.30

  Occupational

  0.60

  2.40

  1.90

  6.90

  3.40

  9.40

  8.00

  23.70

  37.60

  87.40

  10.30

  26.00

  Other1

  0.50

  0.30

  0.20

  0.50

  0.30

  0.20

  1.00

  0.70

  1.00

  0.40

  0.60

  0.40

  Gross income

  55.30

  67.60

  64.40

  85.70

  69.40

  99.60

  82.40

  123.10

  154.10

  266.10

  85.00

  128.40

  Deductions

  5.70

  7.10

  4.70

  6.90

  4.40

  7.30

  7.40

  11.50

  29.90

  50.10

  10.40

  16.60

  596
  workers without dependent children helps them to get jobs and stay in work. Family credit tackles this issue already for families with children, helping over 600,000 families.

  The research programme lasts three years. It starts this year—before earnings top-up is introduced—to set a baseline against which progress can be measured. It then continues the investigation in succeeding years to assess the impact of earnings top-up, comparing the pilot areas to the four control areas.

  The Policy Studies Institute will survey over 30,000 employers, workers and unemployed people, to look at the changing circumstances of people including movement into or out of work, and the wages they receive.

  The Institute of Employment Research will look at how earnings top-up affects local labour markets, that is, at changes in the rates of employment, unemployment, and any effect on local wage levels.

  The Centre for Research in Social Policy will carry out more in-depth interviews with people receiving earnings top-up, those in low-paid work not receiving it, and employers. This will build up a detailed picture of reactions and attitudes to the pilot benefit.

  This £3 million research project is the largest the Department of Social Security has ever undertaken but it represents excellent value for money. To extend earnings top-up immediately to all low-paid people without dependent children would be a large investment, of the order of £500 million. We are taking the prudent course of testing its effectiveness first on a smaller scale.

  At the end of the three years, we expect to have the information we need to decide whether earnings top-up is of value in helping people to move into work and to avoid unemployment.

  I shall, in due course, be placing further details of the research programme in the Library.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide an updated analysis for each quintile of pensioner incomes for single pensioners, pensioner couples and all pensioner units on the same basis as that given on 7 February 1995,Official Report, columns 196–200, table 1. [18220]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables.

  When comparing this reply to the information given on 7 February 1995 it should be noted that the "single" and "couple" table headings for the numbers of pensioner units in each quintile were transposed in the previous reply.
  597

  Table 1: The Average Incomes of Pensioners 1979–1993 (by quintile-quintile l=lowest)—(£ per week July 1993 prices)

  (a) Single pensioners

  Income source

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  Net income BHC (mean)

  49.60

  60.50

  59.70

  78.80

  65.00

  92.20

  75.00

  111.60

  124.10

  216.00

  74.60

  111.80

  Net income AHC (mean)

  39.20

  44.90

  48.70

  59.90

  52.80

  68.60

  61.30

  95.30

  110.10

  202.90

  62.40

  94.30

  Net income BHC (median)

  51.20

  63.10

  61.00

  80.70

  67.70

  93.10

  75.40

  110.00

  107.60

  172.60

  67.70

  93.10

  Net income AHC (median)

  41.30

  49.80

  48.70

  59.70

  53.60

  67.40

  61.70

  94.50

  95.40

  160.90

  53.60

  67.40

  1 Indicates that sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates. Figures are shown only to demonstrate how totals are arrived at. All figures before housing costs (BHC) unless otherwise stated. After housing costs = AHC.

  1. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated.

  2. Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  3. Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age (SPA) and couples in which the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  4. Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the rounded amounts in the table.

  5. Estimates of growth in total net incomes by quintile are based on medians. Estimates of growth of components of income and total incomes of all pensioners are based on means.

  6. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Surveys.

  (b) Pensioner couples

  Income source

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  Earnings1

  0.30

  1.50

  1.30

  0.90

  6.00

  7.50

  28.40

  16.50

  96.80

  55.40

  26.50

  16.30

  Benefit income

  86.60

  97.10

  94.40

  116.50

  94.20

  119.00

  89.30

  118.80

  79.80

  110.20

  88.90

  112.30

  Investment

  2.80

  5.80

  3.70

  7.90

  5.90

  20.20

  10.80

  30.10

  65.60

  139.90

  17.70

  40.70

  Occupational

  2.70

  8.40

  7.40

  20.70

  19.40

  36.80

  38.90

  83.40

  97.60

  197.70

  33.10

  69.30

  Other1

  0.30

  0.20

  0.40

  0.30

  1.70

  0.70

  0.90

  1.20

  1.10

  1.20

  0.90

  0.70

  Gross income

  92.60

  112.90

  107.30

  146.20

  127.20

  184.30

  168.20

  250.00

  341.00

  504.50

  167.00

  239.40

  Deduction

  6.20

  10.30

  5.70

  11.10

  8.50

  14.60

  18.60

  25.40

  81.90

  88.50

  24.10

  29.90

  Net income BHC (mean)

  86.40

  102.60

  101.50

  135.20

  118.70

  169.60

  149.60

  224.60

  259.10

  416.00

  142.90

  209.40

  Net income AHC (mean)

  72.60

  84.40

  85.50

  116.60

  102.90

  154.90

  132.60

  214.30

  235.10

  401.50

  125.60

  194.20

  Net income BHC (median)

  86.60

  105.60

  100.60

  134.40

  116.70

  169.90

  147.50

  220.20

  224.10

  366.80

  116.70

  169.00

  Net income AHC (median)

  72.90

  92.10

  84.60

  115.80

  100.60

  155.50

  131.60

  209.60

  203.50

  349.90

  100.60

  155.50

  1 Indicates that sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates. Figures are shown only to demonstrate how totals are arrived at. All figures before housing costs (BHC) unless otherwise stated. After housing costs = AHC.

  Notes:

  1. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated.

  2. Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  3. Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age (SPA) and couples in which the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  4. Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the rounded amounts in the table.

  5. Estimates of growth in total net incomes by quintile are based on medians. Estimates of growth of components of income and total incomes of all pensioners are based on means.

  6. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Surveys.

  (c) All pensioner units

  Income source

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  1979

  1993

  Earnings1

  0.30

  0.30

  0.50

  0.70

  0.90

  2.40

  10.70

  6.20

  52.90

  38.00

  13.10

  9.50

  Benefit income

  63.60

  73.40

  72.30

  88.50

  70.40

  93.80

  71.20

  100.00

  68.40

  96.90

  69.20

  90.50

  Investment

  2.30

  4.50

  2.80

  5.90

  3.10

  8.10

  8.60

  20.90

  44.70

  97.40

  12.30

  27.40

  Occupational

  1.30

  4.50

  3.90

  11.30

  6.50

  15.70

  17.50

  46.00

  61.70

  133.90

  18.20

  42.30

  Other1

  0.40

  0.30

  0.20

  0.40

  0.50

  0.30

  1.40

  0.90

  0.90

  0.80

  0.70

  0.50

  Gross income

  67.90

  83.00

  79.80

  106.70

  81.30

  120.40

  109.40

  173.90

  228.50

  367.00

  113.40

  170.20

  Deductions

  5.90

  8.20

  5.10

  8.40

  5.30

  8.80

  10.30

  16.90

  49.20

  65.80

  15.10

  21.60

  Net income BHC (mean)

  62.00

  74.80

  74.70

  98.40

  76.10

  111.60

  99.10

  157.00

  179.30

  301.20

  98.20

  148.50

  Net income AHC (mean)

  54.20

  60.20

  59.50

  71.00

  63.70

  98.70

  85.40

  144.10

  158.30

  285.90

  84.20

  131.90

  Net income BHC (median)

  54.40

  67.30

  63.40

  86.10

  69.40

  98.50

  86.30

  142.40

  165.30

  262.40

  69.40

  98.50

  Net income AHC (median)

  44.60

  54.00

  49.30

  61.70

  54.50

  81.60

  69.30

  126.00

  145.20

  250.40

  54.50

  81.60

  1 Indicates that sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates. Figures are shown only to demonstrate how totals are arrived at. All figures before housing costs (BHC) unless otherwise stated. After housing costs = AHC.

  1. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated.

  2. Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  3. Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age (SPA) and couples in which the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  4. Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the rounded amounts in the table.

  5. Estimates of growth in total net incomes by quintile are based on medians. Estimates of growth of components of income and total incomes of all pensioners are based on means.

  6. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Surveys.
  598 599

  Average income change (per cent.)—Single Pensioners (S), Pensioner Couples (C) and Pensioner Units (U)

  (b) Growth in Pensioner Income 1979–1993

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  Earnings1

  -100

  425

  -12

  -25

  -32

  22

  -23

  26

  178

  Benefit Income

  18

  12

  15

  22

  23

  22

  35

  26

  33

  Investment Income

  98

  109

  100

  135

  111

  111

  102

  243

  162

  Occupational Pension

  270

  215

  245

  264

  180

  190

  180

  90

  142

  Other1

  -43

  -30

  -36

  203

  -37

  56

  -21

  -59

  -32

  Gross Income

  22

  22

  22

  33

  36

  34

  43

  45

  48

  Deductions

  24

  66

  39

  47

  93

  63

  65

  72

  68

  Net Income BHC (median)

  23

  22

  24

  32

  34

  36

  38

  45

  42

  Net Income AHC (median)

  21

  26

  21

  22

  37

  25

  26

  54

  50

  Average income change (per cent.)—Single pensioners (S), Pensioner Couples (C) and Pensioner Units (U)

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  S

  C

  U

  Earnings1

  -44

  -42

  -41

  -4

  -42

  -28

  -10

  -38

  -27

  Benefit income

  33

  33

  40

  50

  38

  42

  32

  26

  31

  Investment income

  90

  177

  144

  106

  113

  118

  105

  130

  123

  Occupational pension

  195

  115

  163

  133

  103

  117

  152

  109

  133

  Other1

  -33

  38

  -39

  -62

  8

  -11

  -30

  -18

  -24

  Gross income

  49

  49

  59

  73

  48

  61

  51

  43

  50

  Deductions

  56

  37

  64

  67

  8

  34

  59

  24

  43

  Net income BHC (median)

  46

  49

  65

  60

  64

  59

  50(mean)

  47(mean)

  51(mean)

  Net income AHC (median)

  53

  59

  82

  69

  72

  72

  51(mean)

  55(mean)

  57(mean)

  1 Indicates that sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates. Figures are shown only to demonstrate how totals are arrived at. All figures before housing costs (BHC) unless otherwise stated. After housing costs=AHC.

  1. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated.

  2. Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  3. Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age (SPA) and couples in which the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  4. Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the rounded amounts in the table.

  5. Estimates of growth in total net incomes by quintile are based on medians. Estimates of growth of components of income and total incomes of all pensioners are based on means.

  6. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Table 2: The numbers of pensioner units in each quintile of the net equivalised income distribution for pensioners.

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  (a) Pensioner couples

  Under 75

  300,0001

  350,000

  350,000

  400,000

  400,000

  75 and over

  1250,000

  1200,000

  1150,000

  1100,0001

  1100,000

  Total

  550,000

  550,000

  550,000

  550,000

  550,000

  (b) Single pensioners

  Under 75

  400,000

  500,000

  400,000

  450,000

  500,000

  75 and over

  500,000

  400,000

  450,000

  400,000

  400,000

  Total

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  (c) All pensioner units

  Under 75

  700,000

  800,000

  750,000

  900,000

  950,000

  75 and over

  750,000

  600,000

  650,000

  550,000

  450,000

  Total

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  1 These estimates are based on unreliably small sample sizes, and therefore should be treated with caution.

  1. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 50,000. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  2. These estimates are taken from the Family Expenditure Survey and are for private households in the UK.
  600

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.
Viscount Leathers—Viscount Leathers— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RAF Aircraft Losses
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many Royal Air Force aircraft have been lost in the last three months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, a total of seven RAF aircraft have been lost since the beginning of December 1995.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say whether investigations have shown that there is any pattern of accidents either from low flying or from mechanical failure of certain types of aircraft; and whether such losses will be replaced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, separate RAF boards of inquiry are carrying out thorough investigations in order to determine the cause of each of these accidents. In line with normal policy a summary of each inquiry's findings will be placed in the Library of the House in due course. The Government are in no way complacent about these accidents but there is no common thread to link the accidents together at this stage. The aircraft involved will be replaced from the attrition reserve.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that one extraordinary feature is the different types of aircraft involved in this large number of crashes? Will the inquiries therefore be broad ones and will they consider questions such as morale? Will he also let us have the figures for previous years?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that morale in the RAF, although a serious matter, has any bearing on this unfortunate series of accidents. The noble Lord asked about the accident figures in previous years. Perhaps I may refer him to a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which appeared in Hansard recently.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the aircraft that have been lost are not minor aircraft? They were, after all, two Tornado F3s, two Tornado GR1s, one Jaguar, two Sea Harriers from the Navy and one Harrier, and the combined cost of replacing them is of the order of £200 million. Furthermore, the number of crashes in the whole of
732
1995 was 10. Is there not something seriously wrong with the maintenance of these aircraft? Are the Government satisfied that the aircraft taking off are properly maintained and that there is not too much pressure on the personnel in their budget and in their performance ratio?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not hold with that suggestion for a moment. There is no doubt that the RAF has been busy. The demands on it have been heavy. But the reductions in the number of aircraft and personnel in the RAF have been carefully planned, they have been approved by the air force board, they are consistent with the RAF's commitments and they certainly do not compromise either the requirement for RAF training or indeed for maintenance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case, can the noble Earl say why a Hawk Trainer took off from RAF Valley, Anglesey with its ailerons disconnected after maintenance, killing the pilot?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it really is premature to speculate on the cause of any of these crashes in advance of the outcome of the board of inquiry. If mistakes were made during maintenance by service personnel, then a full inquiry into how that occurred will be held and appropriate action will be taken.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not a fact that aircraft accidents of this kind often occur in bouts for some extraordinary reason and have not been explained in the past?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We had an unfortunate spate of accidents in the summer of 1994 and then a long period of no accidents at all. I do not think it is right at this stage to attach any particular significance to the fact that we have had another cluster in the past few weeks.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, the noble Earl calls in aid the air force board to justify the reductions in personnel. Does that mean that if the air force board had not agreed to the reductions in RAF personnel the Government would not have gone ahead with those reductions?
Earl Howe: My Lords, those are decisions for the air force board. Clearly, if the air force board were to come to Ministers and express disquiet about any proposals, those expressions of disquiet would be taken very seriously. As I said, the air force board agreed to the reductions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there must be concern for the crews as well as for the aircraft. Can my noble friend tell us whether there have been casualties as a result of these accidents?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there have been casualties in a number of these accidents. The Royal Air Force lost two members of the crew and in one of the Royal Navy accidents both occupants of the Harrier were killed. I am sure all noble Lords would like to extend sincere condolences to the families of those involved.

Medical Research Council Studentships
2.43 p.m.
Lord Winston Lord Winston asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many applicants were there for Medical Research Council PhD studentships in each of the past five years and how many studentships were awarded.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the number of Medical Research Council PhD studentships awarded in the past five years are as follows: 393 in 1990–91; 318 in 1991–92; 367 in 1992–93; 388 in 1993–94 and 433 in 1994–95. The MRC does not routinely collect data on the applications for studentships, as student selection procedure is the responsibility of the universities, with the overall quality criteria being agreed with the MRC.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. While I am pleased that overall the MRC has increased its studentships by about 10 per cent. in a five-year period, are not Her Majesty's Government rather concerned, in view of the diminishing number of PhD studentships offered by the Wellcome Trust and the pharmaceutical industry, and as a result of the severe cuts in university funding, that there may not be a severe diminution of our scientific base in due course? I would also like to remind the noble Baroness—
Noble Lords: No, ask!
Lord Winston: Is the noble Baroness aware that the national stipend for a PhD studentship under the MRC is only £6,700, or thereabouts, compared with over £11,000 for a Wellcome Trust studentship? Does the Minister agree that that is a further cause of serious concern for our scientific base in the future?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as I pointed out in my first reply, the past few years have seen a substantial increase in the number of PhDs funded by the MRC, well above the levels of the 1970s and 1980s. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question about stipends, no. Every research council is responsible for setting the stipends at levels which will ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality students. In fact, the research councils' stipends are now at the highest level since 1966. The MRC's stipends are higher than those of the other councils.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, has any national lottery money been allocated for medical research and what is the likelihood of any future allocations?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in all the national lottery grant programmes, every application is considered on its merits and is judged against the published criteria. Within the healthcare category some money was awarded to medical research; for example, £201,800 was awarded for cancer research in Glasgow. The next grant round, which is due to begin in the spring
734
of 1996, will have, as its priority, health, disability and care issues. The Association of Medical Research Charities has already welcomed that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was lost in all the numbers that the noble Baroness read out, so she will forgive me if I misunderstood them. Did she say that the MRC does not know how many people have applied or that it just does not tell us? Given that the country is getting richer and that healthcare is expanding, it is perfectly reasonable that the numbers of studentships should increase. Are they going up relative to those who would like to do research?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the first Answer. The MRC itself does not collect the data because that is done by the universities themselves. They are responsible for student selection, with the overall quality criteria being a matter for the MRC.
Lord Peston: My Lords, so that I and other noble Lords are not totally misled, will she confirm that the answer is that we do not know how many people want to do research in this field? Is that the simple answer? Let me ask a second question. Does the noble Baroness agree that we ought to know how many are applying?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that is a matter between the Medical Research Council and the universities.

Developing Countries: UK Business Assistance
2.48 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Overseas Development Administration's efforts to promote political and economic reform in the developing world will encourage further British private sector involvement there.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, stability, sound economic policies, efficient markets and good governance are essential to attract British and other investment. We encourage developing countries to create these conditions and, through our development programme, support directly their efforts to do so. British business is keen to help the development process and I am taking steps to improve our dialogue so that we continue to learn from each other.
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am aware of all the work that her department does at times of trouble. Can the Minister say what, in a stable situation, her department is doing in particular to make its whole system more efficient?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are three main types of activity. The first is the funding of important policy changes such as the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market; secondly, the freeing up of prices and the improvement of fiscal control or thirdly, making important changes to the management of the financial sector. In that we work very closely with the international financial institutions. We also give technical expertise and investment finance.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, when that assistance is provided to developing countries, does it come with a health warning? Are such countries told that the experience of the British people under such economic and political programmes is mass unemployment; social instability; a rising crime rate; and more people in prison?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have been inundated in the past few years by requests from developing countries to learn how to privatise; how to stop wasting money; and how to do things better than they used to be done. I remind the noble Lord that Britain has the highest number of people employed of any major European country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile her commendable insistence on good governance and the emphasis of granting aid to countries which observe that principle with the Department of Trade and Industry's encouragement of business missions to countries such as Nigeria and Burma, which in no way comply with those criteria?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are good reasons for British companies being helped to take up industrial opportunities in countries overseas. We work with, but also separately from, the Department of Trade and Industry in the sense that where we can promote good and better government and training which brings proper respect for human rights, we do so. The British example backs us up. Many businessmen are extremely helpful in that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what liaison is there between the Minister's department and the United Nations in the promotion of economic reform in the developing world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the department has frequent liaison through the mission in New York which is staffed both by officers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by officials from other government departments. There are regular meetings between the agencies working in New York, the UN secretariat and the secretary-general. I make several trips each year to follow up the work that is being done in both Geneva and New York.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether, in respect of economic reform, the proposals that were advanced and eventually encompassed in the final draft of the Beijing conference—that is to say, the monetisation of the
736
subsistence agriculture for which, very often, women are responsible—are now taken into account in policies for economic reform in developing countries.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, it is. Britain was already taking that aspect into account before the Beijing conference.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, the Minister has stated clearly the importance of private investment. Can she tell the House what she is doing about introducing dialogue between a country with needs and someone in our business world with something to offer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have set up a business strategy group with the help of the non-governmental organisation, Worldaware. We are meeting on a regular basis to see whether we can match even better the aspirations of many developing countries and the business acumen which is so readily available in this country and from which they can benefit. That is one way of assisting. The other way is to use retired businessmen, through the British Executive Service Overseas, who frequently give appropriate advice to both companies and governments overseas which are trying to modernise.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister give us any figures on the amount of private money going into South Africa where, as she said, it could provide great help in reducing unemployment and in helping good government in that country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Britain is the largest private investor in South Africa. I am not completely up to date, but the latest figure shows investment of over £1 billion in the first year after the election of the government of national unity.

Eastwood Park Prison
2.54 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what basis cells at Eastwood Park prison were certified under Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 as adequate for prisoners' physical and mental health.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 requires that "an inspector" should be satisfied that the size, lighting, heating, ventilation and fittings of a cell are adequate for health. The area manager responsible for Eastwood Park certified the cells, having considered that they met the requirements of Section 14 of the 1952 Prison Act.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am rather surprised at the Answer. However, can the Minister confirm that those battery hen cells are not only smaller than the 5½sq. m. specified in the Prison Service's operating standards but are also very badly designed, so that not only is the bookcase over the lavatory but you have to stand on the lavatory to get a book out of the case; to

737
see into the mirror you have to kneel on the bed; the wash basin is largely inaccessible because of the grating over the pipes beside it; and there was no hot water when the prisoners moved in? Are there plans to improve those cells? Indeed, are they really going to continue to use them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness reads the newspapers and is more inclined to believe what they say than to check with the department, which could have put her right. Most of what the noble Baroness has just said is not true. The cells are exceptionally well laid out. The noble Baroness may have read that the bookshelf is inaccessible, but it is not a bookshelf, it is a shelf for the radio. It is where it is because that is where the electric plug is located. It is very accessible. There is, of course, a screen for the toilet and a screen for the sink. It is not true that the bed does not allow for the door to open. The door can open to a full 90 degree angle. Most of what the noble Baroness read from the Observer article—this is true of many other articles—was inaccurate. It was stated that the cells are 6 ft. square. They are not; they are 8 ft. 9 ins. by 6 ft. 2½ ins. Perhaps I should add that the third bedroom of many homes in this country is the same dimension as those cells.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is there not a very simple answer to the Question: if people do not commit crimes, they will not go to such places?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree. Furthermore, the courts do not lightly send women to gaol. If women are sent to gaol, there is usually a very good case for them being there.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that most people do not spend 23 hours a day in the third bedroom of their homes? Do the Government believe in complying with the European prison rules and with the UN's standard minimum conditions for detention? Do those cells comply with those two sets of criteria?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these cells do not hold people for 22 hours a day. Again, that information from the newspapers is quite wrong. The cells at Eastwood Park are bedroom cells. Prisoners will be out of their cells from 8.30 a.m. and will return at 7.45 p.m., with just two 15-minute periods a day when there is a roll-call. The dimensions which the noble Lord mentioned are guidelines. The smallest of the cells in the prison are below the recommended standard by just 4 ins. on one side and 4 ins. on the other. That is what we are talking about. Furthermore, 37 cells in the prison are well above the average and there are segregation facilities and good hospital care facilities. Prisoners at Eastwood Park have moved from a prison where they spent more time in their cells; where there was a smaller dining area; no toilets in the cells; only a very basic and limited education provision; a split site gym which was closed for about half of the time; fewer visits per
738
session; and two poorly converted rooms to provide health service facilities. The facilities at Eastwood Park are much much better than that.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is game, set and match?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord means to me, I agree.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the Minister said that these are convicted prisoners, but surely many of them are on remand or are there for non-payment of fines and did not commit crimes. Is not that so? Is it not a fact that something like one-third of the prisoners contained in those tiny cells have not been convicted?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not true that many are there because of non-payment of fines. We have done some checks and in any single day in the country between 11 and 18 prisoners in the whole of the prison estate are women non-payers of fines, with about three of them being non-payers of their television licences. The courts do not lightly remand people to custody—and certainly not women. The type of offence and whether the person is a persistent offender who has attracted the attention of the courts previously is taken into account. The women on remand at Eastwood Park are not held in cramped conditions. The cells are perceived as being bedrooms only. At the moment, no prisoner is at Eastwood Park for non-payment of fines.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the problem of unpaid fines is as negligible as the Minister suggests, why has the Home Secretary announced that he proposes to review that problem as a matter of urgency? Secondly, does the Chief Inspector of Prisons intend to produce a report on this establishment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the inspector has been in. He has done an unplanned spot check. We shall see his report in a short time. As for non-payment of fines, we were talking about women prisoners. My answer was made in the context of women prisoners. Nevertheless it is an issue. The Home Secretary has considered that it may not be the most appropriate use of an expensive prison cell. He has asked for that to be looked into in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister accept that after her helpful and expansive reply to my Question last night, her present answers are somewhat disappointing? Does she agree that it is not satisfactory to defend the cells at Eastwood Park by comparing them with the unsatisfactory accommodation at Pucklechurch from which the prisoners came? Will she confirm that, since it is now admitted that these prisoners are not necessarily convicted—many of them are on remand—a high proportion of prisoners on remand are not in the end given a custodial sentence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course that is true. Perhaps I should be positive rather than negative and say what is available at Eastwood Park. I might preface my remarks by saying that the prison was opened only on

739
1st March and it is the 12th now. Inevitably some problems have arisen from the fact that the prison officers, who had agreed up to the point of the opening of the prison to a shift system, at the 11th hour withdrew that agreement. That caused initial problems. As I said, the prisoners will be out of the cells from 8.30 in the morning until 7.45 p.m. at night. They have much better dining facilities. They have toilets in their cells, and that is much more hygienic than chamber pots. The education facilities include a range of national vocational qualifications, courses in industrial cleaning, hairdressing, beauty salon work, pottery, literacy classes, basic skills classes, market gardening, polytunnels and landscaping. They have two gymnasiums, purpose-built visitors' accommodation and good healthcare facilities. I rest my case.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the prison from which these prisoners came, which she has described in such graphic terms, is still in use?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no it is not. In that prison the cells were 8 ft. by 8 ft. for two prisoners. This prison has cells which are 8ft. 9 ins. by 6ft. 2½ ins. for one prisoner.
Baroness David: My Lords, did not the previous Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim, condemn the plans for the prison before the conversion was made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was the case, but that judgment was made long before the prison was ready and long before it was opened. It was also made in the absence of knowing what would be the regime. It is important, and I believe it to be right, to say that these are bedroom cells. They are slightly below average, and they will be acceptable only if they go with a good, purposeful activity regime. That is in place, and that is what will be the case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the most encouraging and reassuring thing that she has said is the length of time out of cell? If those standards can be extended throughout the Prison Service, and the time out of cell used constructively, that will be an enormous advance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Chalker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the IGC White Paper that is to be made in another place.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
740
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
LEVEL OF SUBSIDY
(". No subsidy paid in respect of a private sector student loan to any person in pursuance of arrangements under this Act shall exceed 10 per cent. of the value of the individual loan to which the subsidy relates.").
The noble Lord said: As the great exit pilgrimage takes place, I rise to say that the purpose of the amendment is to initiate a discussion about what is, after all, the hidden heart of the whole of this small Bill—the subsidy. I say that it is the heart of the Bill because in the explanatory and financial memorandum we read:
"The Bill enables the payment of Government subsidies to private sector financial institutions which provide loans to students in higher education. Subsidies will be paid in accordance with arrangements made with the private sector institutions. The idea is"—
the version I have omits the word "to", but it should read:
"The idea is to promote the availability of private sector loans as alternatives to the loans which are provided by the Student Loans Company out of voted money".
That is all very general, and necessarily imprecise. In Standing Committee B of another place on 12th December 1995, the Members of the Committee pressed the Minister to give some idea of the amount of subsidy being considered. They felt that that was something they wished to know. The Minister stated on that occasion:
"We are embarking on a process of negotiation whereby the extent to which financial institutions are prepared to participate in the envisaged loan scheme must he tested. There must be a reasonable balance between public subsidy, as is envisaged in the Bill, and a desirable outcome in terms of what will be available to students. That process is only in its early stages".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 12/12/95; col. 16.]
The Committee may feel that that did not greatly advance the degree of clarity about the issue and the question that was being asked. But on Second Reading in this place we took a small but significant step forward. The Minister said:
"A number of points were made, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about how we would set out our negotiating position and the cost to the Government. Noble Lords will have to accept that it is quite wrong at this stage for me to say what the subsidy will be, although I certainly reject the figure being bandied about by the Opposition of some £1,500".—[Official Report, 19/2/96; col. 963.]
That I found distinctly helpful.
Ministers argue that giving Parliament even a general idea would advantage tenderers in negotiations. Yet Ministers are asking Parliament to give them what Members in both places have described as a blank cheque. The debate on this new clause will give them another chance to let Parliament in on their rough expectation of the likely level of subsidy. After all, it is not so arcane and secret a matter as to be hugged by the

741
Government to their collective breast in such a way as not to divulge a single thing. Even local estate agents will go so far as to put at the bottom of the particulars for sale, after all the usual stuff about "desirable, detached res.", something to the effect of "offers around so-and-so", or "guide price thus". It is not as though at present the banks and the building societies are fiercely competing with one another in trying to get a good deal out of the Government. Far from it. The Government have also had a much longer period of negotiation with the financial institutions than was envisaged before the tendering process had to be delayed and revised. Therefore, the argument that giving Parliament some guide as to the figure would divulge the Government's hand carries much less weight.
Our anxiety arises from the Government's inflated expectations about the scheme. They believe that it will save approximately £1.8 billion. Therefore, they must have some idea of the subsidy that they expect to pay. I cannot understand why there should still be this degree of secrecy on a matter such as this. If the Government can believe that they can save that much money from the PSBR, and if they can guess how many students will yield to temptation, it is not difficult to put a figure on the subsidy. Our guess was that it would be somewhere around £1,500 per loan. The Minister has stated that it is not that figure. It might be £1,499 or £1,502 but we know that it is not £1,500. The banks will have made a similar calculation in which the, only variable is the number of student punters.
In proposing the amendment, my aim is to get the matter out into the open and hear for what amount the Government want Parliament to sign a cheque. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the amendment which was moved so well and ably by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He said that the issue of subsidy is at the heart of the Bill, and that must be right. However, as he also pointed out, we had no idea until at least the Second Reading what level of subsidy we might we talking about.
No one expects the Government to reveal their negotiating hand while negotiations are taking place but we expect them to give us some idea of what we are considering. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Minister, inadvertently or otherwise, gave at least some indication on Second Reading when he said that the figure was not £1,500 per. student. He did not say whether it was more or less, but we all make the assumption that it must be less.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I did not say that the figure was not £1,500; I simply rejected that as a figure. Whether the figure is right or not is another matter, but I do not believe that at this stage it is right for the Government to make an assumption. Therefore, I reject the assumptions behind the noble Lord's figure but I am not saying whether it was right or wrong, higher or lower.
Lord Tope: That was a tortuous argument and I believe that we have taken one big step backwards in trying to draw out from the Government what they have in mind in proposing the scheme.
742
Negotiations have been taking place for some time and we gather that they have not been terribly successful. However, surely the Government must be in a position to give us at least a broad indication of the level of subsidy that they have in mind or what the upper limit will be. The lack of interest from the financial institutions is well known. Indeed, only recently the National Westminster Bank announced that should the Bill be passed it would have nothing to do with the scheme.
I hope that it is not unworthy to believe that the Government, in their determination to press ahead with the matter, might feel the need to give some greater encouragement to the financial institutions to take up the scheme. If we have no indication of the kind of figures that the Government have in mind, as we said on Second Reading, that is the clearest indication that the Government in presenting the Bill to the House are asking us to give them a blank cheque. That is not acceptable.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: I support the amendment. There are two issues which one ought to clarify. First, because the loans are relatively short-term there is the possibility that they will be bid for by the wrong kind of financial agencies. If the Government were properly proposing long-term loans, insurance companies and others which can make long-term actuarial calculations would be willing to participate in this business. But we have a short-term loan business which will take away from the banks a lucrative business in which they give overdrafts to students and receive a lot of interest.
The banks are fearful that the business will be taken away but at the same time they are waiting to see how much subsidy the Government will give. Obviously, they would like a high subsidy but I reiterate that there is no economic case for such a subsidy. That must be clearly established. As I said on Second Reading, this is piling market distortion upon market distortion. The rational way of providing the facility would be to provide a long-term loan which would be deductible from the national insurance surcharge. That is not been done and therefore we must have a subsidy.
I can see why the Government do not want to say how much the subsidy will be. Normally, when we on this side of the Chamber put forward suggestions the Government are quick to ask, "How much money is it going to cost and how are you going to find the money for it?". There is a general statement in the Bill that it will all depend on the arrangements that are made with the financial institutions. My noble friend's amendment makes the sensible suggestion that we should ascertain the rough size of the limit by putting a percentage on the value of the loan to which the subsidy attaches. If the Minister does not like 10 per cent. it could be up to the figure of the bank rate, say, and we could have a fluctuating subsidy. It is important that some principle is stated as regards the Government's view of the appropriate subsidy and how much that will cost.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My noble friend will know that there are Members on both sides of the Chamber who believe that other schemes such as

743
income contingent schemes might be worthy of consideration. However, within the context of the Bill it makes sense to consider private support for student loans just as much as public support. Therefore, I rise to oppose the amendment. While I have some sympathy with the suggestion that it would be useful to have a hall-park figure, Members will be aware of the draft tender document in the Library. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government's position that if one is inviting tenders one does not necessarily offer the tender figure oneself but waits for the tenders to come in.
I am not a banker but it seems to me that, given that the student will be undertaking studies for three or four years and that there will be a repayment period of several years, a 10 per cent. absolute figure—the amendment does not provide for 10 per cent. per annum, which would be a large sum—clearly represents about two years' interest on a loan at the current bank rate. That is a very small sum indeed. My reason for opposing the amendment is that to hamper the Government with a figure of 10 per cent. would probably make the system unviable.
Lord Henley: I am grateful for my noble friend's support, somewhat unexpected though it may have been on this occasion. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, moved the amendment more by way of probing. He said that he wanted to get to the heart of the discussion on the Bill and I do not believe that he addressed the amendment itself. His noble friend Lord Desai came back to it, but I do not intend to follow the noble Lord in that. I believe that the amendment is to some extent economically illiterate—my noble friend Lord Renfrew put it somewhat more politely—and would not achieve the noble Lord's desired effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, seeks to find out how much the subsidy is likely to be. He quoted me, and at least did so fairly, by saying that I rejected his figure of £1.5 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, took the matter further and said that I did not use the word "rejected" but said that it was wrong. There is an important distinction. I rejected the figure because I am rejecting any suggestion as to precisely what the figure should be. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, will well understand that if I reject the figure of £1 .5 billion and he comes forward with others which I continue to reject, finally he will get the answer that he desires. We have no figure in mind and it would be wrong to make any prediction as to what the figure will be.
As I explained on Second Reading, we are determined to bring private sector capital and expertise into the provision of student loans. That is what is behind the Bill. There are distinct advantages in that process to the borrowers and, as I have explained on a number of occasions—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will accept this—there are advantages also to the taxpayer in our doing so. But it is pointless to bring in the private sector and nullify those advantages with an inflexible approach as set out in this amendment.
As I have explained on a number of occasions, the amendment would tie our hands in negotiations. Those negotiations will be extremely difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, gave the example of estate agents, but we
744
have been selling houses for a number of years. The privatisation of student loans is something new. The negotiations will be difficult and will involve some difficult concepts. If the private sector knows in advance the level of subsidy on offer, why should it accept less? I am sure that all Members of the Committee will accept that the Government cannot negotiate on that basis. The effect of an amendment of this sort would be to impose damaging inflexibility on our arrangements with the private sector.
Having said that, I understand the desire of Members of the Committee to ensure that public money is not wasted. I give a guarantee that we are not merely looking for a blank cheque. No doubt that is something which we can explore later. However, I assure the noble Lord and all those who have spoken that the question of whether public money is being wasted is a separate issue. I give an assurance that we shall not enter into any agreements with private lenders which do not achieve our objectives cost effectively. This Chamber and another place and all the usual bodies—for example, the NAO—will have an opportunity to scrutinise our spending in the normal way in the future. Having explained the Government's position and why I cannot accede to the demands made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that I should provide a precise figure, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Are we given to understand that the Treasury has not considered the maximum cost in terms of public expenditure in order to subsidise the private sector to take part in the scheme? What other examples is the Minister able to give of subsidies being provided to the private sector to behave in a private sector capacity?
Lord Henley: I am sure that the noble Baroness will not expect me or the officials of my department to go into the negotiating chamber having announced exactly what the subsidy is to be. That would not be right. The private sector would not expect that and might well think that there was something wrong if we did so.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I must confess to being disappointed by the Minister's reply. The amendment came first because we see the issue of subsidy as being absolutely at the heart of the Bill. Indeed, it is difficult to table any of the amendments without mentioning the word "subsidy" because you have to fight your way through the Long Title to make sure that everything that is said or suggested or disagreed with comes in some way under that heading.
My noble friend Lord Desai is a distinguished economist. I believe that most of us would agree with him when he says that there is no economic case for subsidy in any event for such an activity based on the Beloff principle with which we are now all becoming familiar; namely, that the fishmonger sells fish because that is his business. We have heard that once or twice before. I do not apologise for using it again because it has remained true and neither the Government nor anybody else has been able to refute it.
The Minister talked about the difficulties of selling something like this. I hesitate to remind the noble Lord, but the Government have a remarkably effective and

745
long history of selling off state assets to the private sector for a number of years. There is nothing new about it. If they have not yet learnt how to do it, it is high time that they did or that they stopped.
This has not been a very satisfactory reply from the Minister about something which is at the absolute centre of the Bill. As he said, he did not address the amendment itself; he has told us nothing; he has given us nothing. I have no alternative but to ask the Committee to express an opinion on this matter.
3.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McNair, L.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Barnett,L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Blackstone, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Borrie, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Samuel, V.

Glasgow, E.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Shannon, E.

Hanworth V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Soper, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stallard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howell, L.

Taverne, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Longford, E.

Winston, L.

746

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Holderness, L.

Abinger, L

HolmPatrick, L.

Acton, L

Hooper, B.

Addison, V.

Hothfield, L.

Ailsa, M.

Howe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ilchester, E.

Alport, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ampthill, L

Ironside, L.

Annan, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Killearn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kintore, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L

Knollys, V.

Bathurst, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Leigh, L.

Blake, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McConnell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Brookes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Butterfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cayzer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E

Noel-Buxton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norrie, L.

Cockfield, L.

Northbourne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northesk, E.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seed.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cuckney, L.

Orkney, E

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Donegall, M.

Pike, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elibank, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Roskill, L.

Gainford, L.

St Davids, V.

Geddes, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hampden, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayter, L.

Terrington, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

747

Trumpington, B.

Westbury, L.

Vivian, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
IMPLEMENTATION
(". The Secretary of State shall not put in place any arrangements under this Act to implement the making of private sector student loans until he has demonstrated that more than one person by whom private sector student loans would be made is committed to making such loans and is so committed for a period of at least two years.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is very straightforward in its construction. Basically, it says that the whole scheme—that is, the Bill—should not effectively be enacted until the Government have an institution to guarantee that it will take on the scheme. We have a scheme here which does not have any great burden of support from the financial institutions or from the people who are supposed to be providing support for it. We believe that the Government should be able to find at least one institution which is prepared to guarantee for a nominal period of time, at least two years, that it will back the scheme and become involved in it before it comes into being.
Our proposition is very simple. Unless there is that degree of support from the banks or institutions, there is absolutely no point in having the scheme. If the scheme cannot provide that degree of support, there is absolutely no point in it being there. In effect, the legislation is a dead duck anyway. Surely having such a provision in the Bill will guarantee that we will not be bothered with the scheme unless it has the support from those institutions right from the beginning. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The lack of interest being shown in the scheme by financial institutions comes as no very great surprise to those of us who oppose the Bill. Without wishing in any way to say, "We told you so", we told you so. One of the poet Wordsworth's later sonnets—perhaps not in the National Curriculum English Studies, but none the worse for it—begins with the immortal line:
"Another year, another dreadful blow".
The Government must have felt rather like that when on 4th March the NatWest Bank announced its decision. In the National Union of Students' press release there is, perhaps, a note of grim satisfaction when it says:
"NatWest bank has today confirmed to NUS that it has told the government that it will not tender to provide private student loans even if the Education (Student Loans) Bill becomes law, despite the small concessions made in the government's revised tender document".
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee who may not have recently looked again at the tender document, which is available for all to inspect in the Library of the House, that the second version of the tender (which all banks, building societies or financial
748
houses would have to peruse carefully and fill in and return before their bid would be accepted) weighs 471 grammes. I weighed it after I read it in the Library. For those Members of the Committee who have not yet caught up with the European Union, 471 grammes is just over one pound, one ounce. Either way, it was as I believe George III said to Gibbon:
"Another damned, thick, square book"—
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, it was his son!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. That quote was not in my script. I used it straight off the top of my head and got it wrong.
The president of the National Union of Students, Jim Murphy, said in the course of considering that rejection:
"First, the Midland, the Co-op Bank and the Woolwich turned them down, then Lloyds expressed 'serious misgivings', then they were forced to delay the plan's implementation for a year, and now NatWest has put the exclamation mark on the writing on the wall".
Was it not the Royal doctor of his day—and I shall be careful with this one—who coined the historic phrase:
"The King's life is moving peacefully towards its close"?
So, it seems, is the life of this sad Bill as one bank after another creeps silently out of the sick room.
However, the Bill presents a danger even though it does not get any success. There is a danger that the Government may be forced now into some sort of "sweetheart deal" with one loan provider. It seems perfectly possible that one bank or building society might be induced—I use the word "induced" carefully; I shall not say "bribed"—to come aboard the Government's scheme. That seems to me a dangerous situation in which we all, as a nation, might find ourselves.
Let us consider the next two or three moves in a situation like that, if there were only one lender. Such a deal would almost certainly involve a much higher level of subsidy than that originally envisaged by Ministers—whatever that might have been—for two reasons. First, the lender would, of course, have the whip hand over a Government who would be desperate to get the egg off their face. Secondly, the lender would face a student boycott of its student loan business and other business, organised by the National Union of Students. That, I have taken care to find out, is a real, practical possibility which the National Union of Students is willing to consider. Not only is it a real possibility; it is a real and a potent threat to this Bill and to the Government's plan for privatising student loans as far as they can.
Let us play the next couple of moves. If only one lender took part in the scheme it would be possible for that lender to offer preferential deals until the Student Loans Company attracted so few applicants that it would have to be wound up, at which point the Government would have replaced a public monopoly with a private monopoly and the private lender could revert to the standard Student Loans Company terms because there was no one else in the field—it had seen them all off.

749
The requirement for a two-year contractual commitment would remove the possibility of one lender using the same loss-leading tactic to force out a weaker competitor in addition to the Student Loans Company.
I should have thought the Government would welcome this amendment because it will get them out of what could be three serious holes. We support the amendment. My noble friends—if I can call them that—on the Liberal Democrat Benches (they are for the moment anyway) propose it in a spirit almost of helpfulness, because we feel we are in a position to be reasonably helpful now that there does not seem to be much danger of this Bill ever coming to anything very much. Competition and choice—the Government's sacred watchwords in this as in every other activity—absolutely require that there shall be more than one private lender. It takes two to tango and it takes two to make competition, which is why we on these Benches wholly support this amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for establishing as a fact what I had heard only as a suggestion; namely, that the NatWest Bank had turned down the invitation to tender. I wish to make the observation that the weight of the invitation to tender document is probably its chief virtue. Certainly I have examined it not all that closely; but such examination as I have made suggested to me that it was not a document which yielded up its meaning to the casual reader. Indeed, I was tempted to believe—I would feel better if this were the case because I find the document extremely difficult to understand—that the reason for NatWest's rejection of the invitation to tender was the difficulty of understanding the document. That would make me feel better because I would be happy to know that such intelligent people as bankers had found the document a little difficult to understand.
As to this amendment, for exactly the same reasons as those given by my noble friend Lord Renfrew when he refused to support the previous amendment, I do not support this amendment. I think it quite wrong to intervene at the negotiation stage. What I would much prefer to do—indeed what I propose in a later amendment—is that Parliament should be given a full opportunity to scrutinise the arrangements when they have been finalised. That would seem to me to be a proper course, and one which I hope that my noble friend will in due course accept. I do not think it right to press the course suggested in the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies to this amendment, will he indicate to the Committee whether the length of the contractual commitment is at least part of his negotiating arsenal? It seems to me that while the Government continually profess their belief in competition, banks will do almost anything to avoid competition. If they can be induced to accept reduced subsidies through the length of commitment which the Government will make, it seems to me that will be to the benefit of the Government, the students and the banks themselves.
Lord Henley: I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his interesting little literary tour, and particularly for choosing a great Cumbrian poet. I am sure that that was of considerable use to the education of my noble friend the Chief Whip. I remind the noble Lord of the full quotation from Gibbon that he used. I quote this for the noble Lord's own interest,
"Another damned, thick, square book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr. Gibbon?"
I believe that it is normally attributed to the late—now very late—Duke of Gloucester, son of the then King, King George III.
My noble friend Lord Peyton similarly complained that it was possibly unfair on the banks to have this "damned, thick, square book" and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, gave its weight both in metric form and in imperial units. I believe it weighed a little over one pound. I accept that for my noble friend Lord Peyton the document can have problems yielding its message—as I think my noble friend put it—to the casual reader. But I should say that it is obviously not designed for the casual reader. It is designed for the financial institutions and not—if I dare say so—for my noble friend. Nevertheless, we thought it would be of some use to noble Lords, in trying to indicate where we are going, to place copies of it in the Library. That is why we did so.
Although we obviously deeply regret the fact that the National Westminster Bank has withdrawn, I can give an assurance to the Committee that there are still a reasonable number of banks who are interested. We hope very much that they will consider the invitation to tender in detail and come forward with proposals that we can negotiate in due course. Our aim is that up to four private sector lenders would be chosen for each of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The invitation to tender documents make that quite clear. They also make quite clear our aim—this will deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—that the contracts should each last for five years.
For obvious reasons we cannot be more precise about the number of private lenders until the tenders have been received and we have been able to come to a view on them. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that if there is none, we shall obviously not go ahead. We do need a number of lenders. We shall consider the tenders carefully to ensure that the benefits of the private sector involvement are achieved cost-effectively for the taxpayer. We shall also look carefully at each tender to ensure that that institution is able to deliver the service standards that are an important element of private involvement. We shall also look carefully at the tendering process as a whole to judge whether our objectives of choice, competition and diversity will be met. I am not worried by those words, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is. He seems to reject choice, competition and diversity. I know his party rejects that in much of our educational programme. But obviously the number of high quality and potentially successful bids will be an important factor in that whole process.
Again, I give an assurance that we shall not sign contracts unless they provide effective choice and competition at the right price. But we have to take that

751
decision on the merits of the tenders received. I think there is no case for putting quite such a general restriction on the face of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment on this occasion.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, in his reply, to which I listened carefully, he said that the Government hope that there will he interest from a minimum of four institutions in England, four in Scotland and four in Wales. That would be the Government's aspiration and not a fixed target. Surely it is reasonable to have a minimum of at least 50 per cent. of the Government's target and to say that at least two would be a reasonable minimum, given the assertion that four would be the ideal.
Lord Henley: I regret to say that the noble Baroness has misquoted me. I said that our aim is to have up to four private sector lenders in each of the three areas that I discussed. I did not talk about minimums.
What I rejected about this amendment was that it said that we had to have at least a plurality, that we had to have at least two. It is exceedingly unlikely in view of what I said about the need to have competition and choice that we would ever have fewer than two, but we might feel we could pilot some scheme in a limited number of areas and then later move on to a wider scheme, if necessary. That is not our intention at the moment.
The noble Baroness must remember that this is an enabling Bill. Our intention is to have at least up to four and to have the appropriate choice and diversity. I do not think it would be right to be limited in the way that the amendment limits us.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Before the noble Lord sits down again, may I get this quite clear because it is an important point that he has made? I was about to bound to my feet but was beaten off the starting blocks by my noble friend. At the end of the Minister's reply it seemed to me that he committed himself to a plurality. He stressed that there would be competition. I made the point that competition requires at least two people; you cannot compete with yourself. Is that what he is stating, and, if that is the case, why does he not accept the amendment?
Lord Henley: As I explained in my rejoinder to the noble Baroness, obviously we would want competition and that requires a plurality. I pointed out that this was merely an enabling Bill and that there could be an occasion, if there were only one institution interested, when we might be able to try out some pilot scheme that might allow us to build on those advantages and persuade other institutions that there were merits in involving themselves in this. The amendment itself would completely preclude that.
Having said that, what I make quite clear is that our intention was not to go down that line if at all possible but to seek a plurality of the different providers so that there was the necessary competition.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the Minister prepared to give the House an assurance that in the event
752
of financial institutions choosing to submit tenders—for example, three institutions, one choosing Scotland, one choosing England and another choosing Wales—they would then be prepared to sign agreements with what could be seen by some as a sort of cartel?
Lord Henley: Again, I do not think the noble Baroness listened to my earlier remarks when I talked about up to four private sectors for each of the three different areas, England and Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Quite obviously the situation she is talking about would be merely one provider in each of those areas, and I do not think that would allow us the appropriate choice, diversity—words I know that the noble Baroness and her party hate—and competition.
Lord Addington: Having heard the noble Lord's answer, at one point I thought he was giving us exactly what we wanted, guaranteeing that there must be a number of people involved in the scheme. We heard him say: "We hope for", "Hopefully there shall be", "It is almost impossible that there will not be", or, "Well, we might live with one if we haven't any other choice". This is exactly what this amendment is about. Unless you guarantee yourself a degree of choice you are placing an institution in a tremendously strong position. This amendment is like guaranteeing that you will have at least two people there for a set period of time.
The Minister said: we do not think it would be a very good idea to have one person there but we might have to if it is the only way to get the scheme off the ground so that we can show to other people—I think I am more or less paraphrasing his words—that this is a good scheme. That is unacceptable. This is not something which is interfering with negotiation; it is about something which is a result of negotiating. This is the final thing, the final product. If the noble Lord is not prepared to give us firmer guarantees, which I thought he was at first, we have absolutely no choice, on these Benches anyway, but to press this amendment, because without it this Bill would be fundamentally flawed.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 156.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L

Butterfield, L.

Addington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Carter, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Avebury, L.

Chorley, L.

Bancroft, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barnett, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Desai, L

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Borrie, L.

Durham, Bp.

Bridges, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

753

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Peston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Grey.E.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hayman, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell, E

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shannon, E

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney ,L

Stallard, L.

Kintore, E.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Strafford, E.

Lockwood, B.

Taverne, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Tenby, V.

Mlackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

McNair, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tope, L.[Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tordoff, L

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mayhew, L.

Whaddon, L

Merlyn-Rees, L.

White, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cuckney, L.

Addison, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Airedale, L.

Davidson, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Alport, L

Donegall, M.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Drogheda, E

Astor of Hever, L.

Elibank, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ellenborough, L

Blake, L.

Elles, B.

Blaker, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Boardman, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ferrers, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Finsberg, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Flather, B.

Brookes, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainfond, L.

Butterworth, L.

Geddes, L.

Cadman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Halsbury, E.

Carnock, L

Hampden, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hanworth, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Harlech, L.

Chesham, L .[Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harris of Peckham, L

Clark of Kempston, L

Harvington, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Courtown, E.

Henley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Holderness, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Cross, V.

Hooper, B.

754

Hothfield, L.

Orkney, E.

Howe, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ilchester, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Inglewood, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ironside, L.

Pike, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kimball, L

Platt of Writtle, B.

Knollys, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Pym, L.

Lauderdale, E

Quinton, L.

Leigh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lindsay, E

Rawlings, B.

Liverpool, E

Reay, L.

Long, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Lucas, L.

Renwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Romney, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Roskill, L.

McConnell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Samuel, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Slim, V.

Mersey, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Middleton, L.

Strange, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swansea, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mountevans, L.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teviot, L.

Munster, E

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Nelson, E.

Trumpington, B.

Norrie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Northbourne, L.

Vivian, L.

Northesk, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Westbury, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Intergovernmental Conference: White Paper
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Intergovernmental Conference which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.
"Britain has a vision of Europe which is reflected in the White Paper which we are publishing today and which is entitled A Partnership of Nations. We want

755
to see a Europe that respects cultural and political diversity, which only does those things at the European level which need to be done at that level, which is outward-looking, free-trading, democratic and flexible: a partnership of nations working together to advance their national interests. The IGC is, of course, only one means available to us through which we intend to realise our objectives. We shall continue to work tirelessly in all the other fora for the same goal.
"Successive British Governments have seen the European Union as a means of safeguarding stability and creating prosperity in Europe. Of course there have been frustrations and controversies. But, overall, the UK has greatly benefited from more than 20 years of membership.
"So the Government approaches the launch of the Intergovernmental Conference at Turin on 29th March unambiguously committed to our membership of the European Union. We shall play a leading role in the Union as one of Europe's biggest and most powerful nations. Our voice is influential. We have helped shape the European Community in the past. Britain was the pioneer of the single market. We have been one of the leading advocates of enlargement and of a European Union open to the world.
"The Government believe the European Union will succeed only if it respects the integrity of the independent democratic nation states which comprise its membership; and if it is flexible enough to accommodate their political and cultural differences. The Government are totally opposed to a monolithic, centralised, federal Europe.
"The Treaty on European Union, like the original Treaty of Rome, calls for an 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe', not, let it be noted, among the states of Europe or among their governments. This aspiration for strengthened co-operation and friendship across the whole of Europe is a noble one, fully shared by the Government. But it should not mean an ever closer political union in the sense of an inexorable drift of power towards supra-national institutions, the erosion of the powers of national parliaments, or the gradual development of a United States of Europe. The Government reject that conception of Europe's future. That is why it is crucial that national parliaments remain the central focus of democratic legitimacy. Europe must develop with the instincts of free people in free nations. As the European Union matures it needs a clearer sense of what it is and of what it should never aspire to be. These principles are closely adhered to in the White Paper.
"The Intergovernmental Conference is clearly important to the European Union's future. But it is not the only, or perhaps even the most important, challenge which the Union faces. Outside the Intergovernmental Conference, we must prepare for the enlargement of the Union to the east and south. That will involve the herculean task of reforming the Community's agricultural and regional policies.
756
Meanwhile we cannot ignore the urgent need to strengthen Europe's competitiveness and thereby generate new jobs. There will also be hard choices to make on a single currency and on the Union's future financing. These critically important matters do not fall within the scope of the Intergovernmental Conference, though the United Kingdom is developing clear and robust policies in each area.
"The Maastricht Treaty came into force little more than two years ago. We agree with the conclusion of the study group which was set up to prepare for the IGC that,
"the Conference should focus on necessary changes, without embarking on a complete revision of the Treaty".
British objectives such as a major reform of the common agricultural policy do not need treaty amendment and will be taken forward in other negotiations.
"The IGC has yet to begin. In common with other member states, the Government are still considering their detailed approach. We may have further proposals to make as the negotiations proceed. The following represent our specific proposals for this Intergovernmental Conference.
"First, subsidiarity is the key to ensuring that the Union concentrates single-mindedly on doing what needs to be done at a European level, and only that. The UK introduced this vital concept into the treaty at Maastricht. The principle has been developed at subsequent European Councils. It is having the effect we intended. But more clarity is needed in the treaty itself. We will therefore bring forward proposals at the IGC to entrench subsidiarity still further in the treaty.
"Secondly, we are concerned at the way in which certain directives have been used or may be used for purposes that were never intended by the governments that agreed to them. For example, health and safety articles that may be used for social policy; or fiscal measures that may be added on to single market or environment proposals. Another example is in the common fisheries policy where the practice of `quota-hopping' is preventing fishing communities from enjoying a secure benefit from national quotas, thereby undermining their entire purpose.
"The Government do not believe that directives once enacted are irreversible and will press for treaty amendment if that proves to be the best way of ensuring that the original purpose of these directives is fully respected.
"Thirdly, the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer has said that the Union should do 'less but better'. Britain agrees. The volume of new legislative proposals being put forward has been falling rapidly, with only 19 proposals for principal legislation expected in 1996. This compares to 61 in 1990. But there is also an urgent need to improve the quality of European legislation. We shall be pressing for a range of measures to achieve this, including much wider consultation of interested parties via the Commission

757
before proposals are put forward, and the automatic withdrawal of proposals which are not adopted by the Council within a given period.
"Fourthly, Madam Speaker, national parliaments are the primary focus of democratic legitimacy, in the Union. This House, like the Government, rightly attaches importance to the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making. We have taken careful note of views expressed in a number of helpful reports by committees of this House. We are examining a range of ideas, including a binding period for parliaments to scrutinise Community documents before decisions are taken in the Council, and a greater role for national parliaments in the justice and home affairs pillar. The European Parliament, by contrast, already has a major role in the European legislative process, including a number of new powers acquired at Maastricht, some of which have yet to be fully tested. The Government do not, therefore, see the case for new powers for the European Parliament at the expense of national parliaments or governments.
"Fifthly, we believe that foreign and defence policy must remain the responsibility of national governments. The common foreign and security policy has, since its inception, achieved more than many had expected. It is in this country's national interest that members of the EU should speak and act together on the world stage where our objectives are the same. Our joint support for the Middle East peace process or for democratic institutions and market economies in central and eastern Europe are obvious examples. We shall be pressing for a more effective CFSP at the forthcoming conference. But, crucially, Britain believes that the CFSP must remain based on unanimity and be intergovernmental in character if it is to succeed. As the House knows, I put forward our ideas in a speech in Paris last week. Ultimately, the CFSP will only carry weight internationally if it represents a genuinely common policy, not a majority one.
"Sixthly, the IGC will also be considering the arrangements for European defence co-operation. The Government set out their approach in a full memorandum last year. That memorandum has been attached to the White Paper which is being issued today. We believe it would be useful to improve defence co-operation in Europe by closer co-operation between the European Union and the Western European Union. We do not, however, believe in the integration of these two bodies or the subordination of the WEU to the European Union. NATO must remain the bedrock of Western security. The European Union, four of whose member states are neutrals, and who are neither in NATO nor the WEU, cannot expect to take decisions on defence policy or on the use of military forces.
"Seventhly, co-operation in justice and home affairs will be of particular importance in the IGC because terrorism, organised crime, illegal immigration and drug trafficking are among the greatest challenges facing modern society. They require a co-ordinated, multi-national response.
758
Substantial progress has been achieved in the last few years in this area and Britain has proposals for improving this co-operation. But, as with CFSP, the Government believe that these issues must remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity if they are to carry the support of the peoples of Europe. These are matters of high political sensitivity involving questions of national sovereignty.
"Eighthly, the European Court of Justice is another area where we shall be pressing for improvements at the IGC. Britain is committed to a strong and independent Court without which it would be impossible to ensure even application of Community law or to prevent abuse of power by the Community institutions. But the functioning of the Court can, and in the Government's view must, be improved. There is very great concern that the ECJ's interpretations sometimes seem to go beyond what governments intended when laws were framed.
"The Government are working up a number of proposals to enable the Court to address these concerns better. These include: strengthening the ability of the Court to limit retrospective application of its judgments; introducing the principle that a member state should only be liable for damages in cases of serious and manifest breach of its obligations; applying national time limits to all cases based on EC laws except where the member state's failure to implement a directive is in serious and manifest breach of its obligations; and internal appeals procedure; streamlined procedures for the rapid amendment of EC legislation which has been interpreted in a way which was never intended by the Council; an accelerated procedure for time-sensitive cases; and a treaty provision clarifying the application of subsidiarity in the interpretation of EC laws. The Government will shortly be issuing a memorandum setting out their proposals in detail.
"Ninthly, certain changes to the Council voting system will be necessary if the Union is to continue to function democratically in an enlarged Union. At present, the system of weighted votes is biased against the larger member states. There is growing acceptance across Europe that a way must be found to address this imbalance. Possible alternatives include changing the number of votes of larger countries so that population is better reflected. What is clear is that the system must not allow countries representing a significant percentage of the EU's population or the major net contributors as a group to be out-voted.
"Tenthly, as the Union enlarges to as many as 27 members it will be necessary to change the current policy whereby every member state, however small, has a commissioner and is responsible for a six-month presidency. Such a structure would quickly become unworkable in an enlarged Union.
"As the White Paper makes clear, there are a number of other specific areas where the Government see scope for improvements to the treaty at this IGC, including animal welfare and possible changes to the common fisheries policy as announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture last

759
week. There are many areas where the countries of the Union could and should co-operate more closely in their own national interests and in the interest of Europe as a whole. But at a time when there is concern about Europe trying to do too much, we do not believe that the rules on qualified majority voting in the treaty should be changed to make it easier to override national concerns in areas of particular sensitivity. That is why we will oppose the extension of majority voting at the IGC.
"Nor do we favour further harmonisation or the extension of Community competence in the area of employment. The need to create jobs is one of the highest priorities facing the European Union. But jobs cannot be wished into being simply by legislating for them. It is businesses that make jobs. That is why the Prime Minister negotiated Britain's Social Chapter opt-out at Maastricht. I can tell the House that our opt-out is here to stay.
"The Government approach this IGC with confidence and determination. The national interest of this country is the starting point for our approach since for all free nations the national interest can be defined as the collective expression of the democratic process. In many areas, our national interest coincides with that of our European partners and in those areas working with our partners enables our collective effort better to achieve our ends. We shall argue constructively for treaty changes to improve the operation of the Union. We want to strengthen the treaty so that Europe can face and overcome the challenges ahead and, in particular, so that we can prepare for further enlargement. As I have said, the conference is only one forum where we shall press for our vision of Europe. There are others and we shall argue robustly in all of them. Britain will be at the heart of the debate about the future of the European Union because it is our future and we can best shape our national destiny by working with our closest neighbours to make a strong and effective partnership of nations."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness .for repeating the Statement made in another place. It was somewhat lengthy and I assure the House that I shall take nowhere near as long as the Minister. In that connection, we must do something about our procedures. I do not have quite the same volume of complaints, either in terms of sound or content, this afternoon as I did over Scott. However, the White Paper is detailed and to receive it, as one does on these occasions, relatively shortly before one has to rise to deal with the detail is a difficult task. As in all such matters, as the House knows, the devil is in the details, not in the Statement that is made upon them.
I start by expressing sympathy for the Minister in making the Statement. I suppose that one should express sympathy with the Government in totality because the impression that they are trying to give under all the verbiage is: "Here is a government committed to a
760
policy of ever-closer co-operation with our partners in Europe. But we're terribly sorry, we can't actually say so because we have problems within our own party and because of the divisions within the Conservative Party". Therefore, on the big issues the White Paper is silent.
On the little issues—or littler anyway—the White Paper has quite a lot to say, particularly on the veto. There is not a word on EMU, not a word on monetary union. Of course, that is an issue on which we might have trouble behind us. I also looked in vain for a mention of the word "referendum" throughout the paper, but there is nothing on it. Perhaps we will have trouble with the people sitting behind us if we mention that.
It is a predictable and somewhat pallid document. I sympathise with the Government's difficulties—good Europeans as some of them are—in dealing with their recalcitrant Back-Benchers. It is a document in which the Prime Minister, in the foreword, produces a ringing statement that,
"we should throw ourselves into the debate … with confidence and determination".
He then produces a document in which the vision, when we come down to it, seems to resolve itself into animal welfare and what to do about the procedures of the European Court. That does not entirely ring true and it did not so far as I was concerned.
The problem is not new; it will not go away. If we wish to co-operate with our partners, we have to accept some of the disciplines and constraints that arise from that relationship. That is precisely what the Government cannot admit at present. In his foreword, the Prime Minister said that there is:
"a strong sense of shared purpose and common enterprise".
One cannot achieve a shared purpose except by being openly prepared to share a common purpose. One cannot achieve a common enterprise except by being prepared to identify what the common enterprise is and say how one will co-operate with one's partners in pursuing those enterprises. In some ways, the most interesting part of the document is what it does not contain rather than what it does.
Perhaps I may turn to the Court, with which a considerable section of the White Paper deals. Will the Minister confirm that there are no proposals for altering the jurisdiction or competence of the European Court of Justice? There is a lot about procedures and matters of detail, and I shall be asking about that later. However, the central issue is whether the European Court shall continue to have the powers that it has been given in the treaty. As I understand it, there are no proposals or suggestions from the Government that that should be changed.
One point in the White Paper about the European Court slightly intrigued me. It asks for:
"streamlined procedures, for the rapid amendment of EC legislation which has been interpreted in a way which was never intended by the Council".
Who is to decide what the Council intended or did not intend unless there is a far greater degree of openness in the procedures of the Council? Are the Government in favour of opening up the Council to such disclosure?

761
I may be wrong but I received the impression that it was not something that the Government were prepared to contemplate.
The White Paper mentioned the reform of the common agricultural policy. There are no proposals in the document about how the Government will set about reforming it. It would be interesting at some stage to hear about it. There is little in the document on unemployment, one of the major factors facing the countries of the European Union at the moment. There is a ritual attack upon the Social Chapter but no reference to the referendum or the EMU.
It is a White Paper of a government who are running scared of a considerable part of their own supporters. In my view, it is a blinkered document with little vision. The Government are extremely good at erecting windmills and then spending a great deal of time and effort tilting at them. There is a lot of windmill about the White Paper. Finally, the White Paper now having been produced, on our side we would expect an opportunity for an early debate on the details.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in thanking the Minister for repeating the full Statement which was made in another place on the White Paper on the IGC. Like the noble Lord, I have not had much opportunity to examine the White Paper in detail. It is attractively produced and we shall wish to consider whether the policies set out in it are as attractive to us on full examination.
I noticed with contentment, in a brief glimpse at the small print on page 33 that,
"Britain is irrevocably part of the European Union".
I hope Euro-sceptics on both sides of this House will remember that statement as our debates develop.
I was also glad to see at the beginning a robust statement from the Government that overall the United Kingdom has greatly benefited from more than 20 years of membership. I also noted the commitment to play a leading role in the Union as one of Europe's biggest and most powerful nations. However, will the Minister tell the House how that is consistent with the generally negative tone of much of the main body of the Statement? It seems to us to be full of inconsistencies.
The United Kingdom is thoroughly committed to enlargement of the European Union; it is thoroughly committed to reform of the common agricultural policy. Is it not a fact that both those aims are achievable only on the basis of some extension of qualified majority voting? Yet the Government remain stubbornly opposed to any extension. How on earth do the Government seek to justify that position? The Statement is full of ambiguous language which, as we know very well since we have all been through this over the years, is designed to fudge the gap between the Government's serious commitment to European union and their appeasement of the Euro-sceptics within their own ranks.
The very title of the White Paper is typical of that approach: A Partnership of Nations. The whole thrust of the Statement, and what I was able to see of the
762
White Paper, provide a blueprint for Britain being a very junior partner of nations—and a very reluctant junior partner—within the European Union.
The truth that emerges in every sentence of the Statement is that the Government would just love it if only the European Union would decide to stand still. But the European Union will not stand still. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said yesterday in a very interesting article in the Financial Times, the Government by their policy are deliberately excluding themselves from the inner core of the European Union that will shape developments which, as usual, we shall ultimately have to live with and adapt ourselves to, often when it is too late.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Thomson of Monifieth for their cautious welcome—not all their remarks—for the Statement. I apologise to both for the length of the Statement; but I felt it important to try to spell out, to those who may not have time for a few days to take in the whole of the White Paper, the broad outlines of what it covers. I did my very best to make sure that both noble Lords had a copy of the White Paper some one and a half hours before we began the Statement.
I agree that the detail is in the devil and perhaps I might reply right away—the devil is in the detail! It is amazing the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has upon me. The noble Lord asked for an early debate. I am sure that the usual channels heard his request, as we all did, and that it will be dealt with in the normal manner.
The reason that neither the White Paper nor my Statement covered the issues of EMU or the referendum is that these are not matters for the IGC; they are matters for the Government. So far as a referendum on a single currency is concerned, the Cabinet will decide whether to hold a referendum within weeks rather than months and the noble Lord will hear the news very soon.
The noble Lord went on to say that he thought the White Paper was predictable and padded. Or was it my Statement? It was probably both. We felt it important to put in one place all those elements of the discussions that had been going on in a rather unfocused way for far too long. That is why there may be many items which noble Lords know only too well. But at least the information is brought together in a comprehensive document in an effort to be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also asked about openness and who would decide what was in line with the original intentions so far as the Court was concerned. I ask the noble Lord to read again paragraph 36, which states quite clearly that,
"The IGC will provide an opportunity to examine the role of the European Court of Justice".
It goes on to give our view, our commitment to a strong, independent court, and explains in subsequent paragraphs exactly what we believe; namely, that the functioning of the Court could be further improved. Much of what is stated in those paragraphs is contained

763
in my Statement. The noble Lord is, however, quite right. I confirm that they are not proposals for a change in the jurisdiction.
The CAP is a matter at which we have to work. It is not a matter for the IGC. The IGC would probably get itself totally tied up if it were to face that as well. It is a matter for separate negotiation.
In regard to unemployment, we are absolutely clear. I have never made any secret of the fact in this House that to gain jobs, not only in this country but in the Community as a whole, is one of the most important aspects of what we need to do in Europe. It is absolutely right that we are showing a good performance in our economy and that our unemployment has fallen. One important reason why that has happened is that we are unfettered by the social chapter, and we intend to go on being unfettered by it. It is very important that unemployment is discussed, and also the positive side of employment creation. That is obviously a very big subject for other member states. In general this will all be subject to our debate, when it is held.
To reply to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I understand why he believes that many changes would come about as the result of an extension of qualified majority voting. However, I do not believe it to be in the best interests of the needs of this country to go down that path. That is why I spoke as I did. We are neither junior nor reluctant in the European Union. In many of the ideas that we have put to the European Union, we may have been a single voice, but they have eventually been accepted. One example is the concept of subsidiarity, which we wish to entrench further through the work of the IGC.
I do not believe that the European Union has to stand still. It cannot stand still. It will evolve. But it should evolve as a partnership of nation states, and the United Kingdom will play its full part in shaping that evolution of the European Union.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is the intention of the Government at the forthcoming meeting to secure that there are no further examples of the European Court interfering in our social security system, and in particular altering the age entitlement for social security benefits, as it recently did, at an annual cost to the British taxpayer of £40 million? Will the Government secure that that does not happen again?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference which starts on 29th March in Turin will not be just one meeting. It will continue into next year.
Regarding the judgments of the ECJ, we are certainly working out proposals for the IGC to prevent the misuse of articles in the way my noble friend described. However, this is not just a straightforward matter concerning one area of government policy; it concerns a number of areas of government policy, and we shall do that most thoroughly.
Lord Moran: My Lords, as a member of your Lordships' committee concerned with the 1996 IGC, I am glad to note that the proposals in the Statement follow very much the recommendations made by that committee. In particular, I am glad to see that two of its recommendations—that an extension of majority voting should he opposed and that the European Parliament should have no new powers at the expense of national parliaments—have been adopted in the Government's proposals.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the question of the common fisheries policy will be actively pursued in the IGC. Can she give an assurance that the Government will not be satisfied with any arrangement that does not fully meet their case that quota-hopping has torpedoed the entire basis of the policy and therefore must be put right.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for his comments. The work of your Lordships' committee on European affairs has been most useful, not only in the preparation of the White Paper but in many aspects of the European Union. I commend to the noble Lord paragraph 65 of the White Paper. The paragraph refers to the common fisheries policy. The penultimate sentence reads:
"The Government is determined to address [quota-hopping] and other problems in the Common Fisheries Policy and will explore every avenue for that purpose. If Treaty changes arc needed, we shall seek them".
I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the approach that we take. We cannot at this time spell out all of the detail, but we intend to follow it through.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I should like to put a further question about qualified majority voting. I understand the reluctance to see an extension of qualified majority voting to sensitive areas like defence. But how can the noble Baroness reconcile the immense benefits derived from the single market programme, made possible only through the extension of qualified majority voting, with an apparent reluctance to envisage any further qualified majority voting, even in areas such as third-party access to national energy markets where we have much to gain nationally?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, makes. However, this does not appear to be the time to extend qualified majority voting when across the whole of the European Union there is not popular concern for the growth of centralised decision making. It would give entirely the wrong signals and make it easier to overrule national governments. We need to keep unanimity for key constitutional and policy issues. I believe that there are issues that we have properly dealt with by QMV. The matter mentioned by the noble Lord, because it is a single market area, is probably one that should he covered by QMV. But I shall look again at what he said because I am not sure that I have entirely taken his point. I shall reply to him by letter.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her Statement. I believe it to be a

765
thoroughly practical and worthwhile Statement. I hope that the whole country unites behind it and extends every good wish to all those who take part in the IGC later this month. It has been said that the EU will not stand still. I entirely agree. If it goes forward it must do so on sound and firmly-based foundations. There are practical matters which have to be discussed and examined in detail and proper solutions found in order that we can in confidence go forward into the future. I believe that many of the matters which have to be looked at closely are clearly and properly identified in the Statement.
I hope that during the forthcoming and continuing conference the basic need for financial regularity will not be neglected. I am afraid that this is a matter that I raise every time in dealing with the European Union. Until we can ensure at every stage that this is being achieved, any further enlargement of the Union will bring disaster, because the irregularities which currently exist, and which were shown in the last auditors' report, will become much greater should other countries to the east be brought in.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I thoroughly agree that there must be a sound base. I can assure him that in the continuing discussions of the IGC we will, as we always have done, continue to take the lead in the fight against fraud, waste and financial mismanagement. It was the United Kingdom who at Maastricht secured full institutional status for the European Court of Auditors, the statement of assurance—that is, the general audit of the Union's finances—greater status for the ECA's reports, and the obligation upon member states to treat fraud against the Union's budget as seriously as if it were fraud against national finances. It is absolutely crucial that we work on this matter prior to enlargement and continue to work on it. Just as one devises schemes to detect any fraud or bad dealings, so new ones are invented. It will not be something that comes to an end; it will be a continuing process, as it is in business and life in general.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, at the risk of not accelerating any differences that may conceivably exist between the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter, I should like to congratulate the Government in one respect. On page 7 of the White Paper they have reproduced, very conveniently, their views as to what progress may be made over the next five years. I find the diagrammatic form very convenient. It will certainly be helpful in holding the Government down to their own programme. I suggest that during the course of the proceedings outlined here the Government do not wait until the end before they report to Parliament on certain aspects that they achieve. It would be hopeless if a whole series of IGCs went on more or less indefinitely without Parliament being informed from time to time, on an interim basis, of what was being achieved.
The defect in the whole approach of the Government is that all the time it deals in generalities. For example, the Statement is replete with phrases such as "we see
766
the force of this", "we shall continue to work tirelessly towards", "we shall play a leading role", "we are totally opposed to", or "we must prepare for". All of those phrases are beloved of the Civil Service. If the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, had been present he would have been able to give a far more amusing comment than I am capable of doing.
Neither the White Paper nor the Statement addresses the existence of institutional powers, particularly those exercised by the Commission, which were certainly not anticipated at the time the treaty was signed or the various directives determined. In particular, I refer to the concept of subsidiarity. The Government must be aware—and both Opposition parties should be aware—of the endeavours that are being made by the Commission in bypassing national parliaments. The House should be aware of the efforts that are being made to enable the Commission to establish lines of communication and powers of legislation and direction, excluding member states, directly with the regions. It is happening all the time on a gradual basis. There are now conferences between the Commission and various local authority interests. It has already divided Europe into four different zones based on the various authorities that belong to them.
We have to be aware of this point. It is one thing to emphasise, as the noble Baroness has done today, the importance of the nation state, which I trust my own party will also endorse. It is another thing altogether to tolerate the progressive growth of Community powers exercised by the Commission direct to the regions inside the Community rather than through the member states. I hope that some endeavour will be made to correct that development.
Apart from that I wish to congratulate the noble Baroness and to say that I trust that nothing I have said has determined the coalition on this matter that presently exists between all three parties as to the essential validity of Maastricht.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am always careful to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his remarks but afterwards to re-read them three or four times over to make sure I really do know what I have let myself in for. He was certainly very generous in describing the diagram on page 7 as helpful. I, too, found it extremely helpful. To have it all in one place saves an endless number of pieces of paper.
The noble Lord asked that we should keep your Lordships informed during the negotiations. At the conclusion of any set of negotiations it may be possible to do so but obviously not during the negotiations. It would be foolish to reveal more widely in the middle of negotiations something that was happening before we had secured the things we are after, which I outlined in the Statement and which are stated in the White Paper.
I do not think the Statement is full of generalities, as the noble Lord tried to say. To state that one is totally opposed to something is pretty clear. I understand very well his concern about institutional powers but I do not believe that the Commission would be successful if it tried to bypass the established communication lines to national governments. I have to point out to the noble

767
Lord that many Labour Members of the European Parliament have encouraged regionalisation because they believe it to be in the best interests of the regions of this country to have a direct line to Brussels. I can understand why that is seen, superficially at least, to be a quick way of doing things. But it will not fit unless it also fits with the policy of the national government of the day. Therefore, in dealing with regional matters, it is essential that the government of the country concerned are also involved in what is happening in their regions. That is something the Government seek to ensure the Commission never forgets. If the noble Lord re-reads paragraph 33 on page 15, and re-reads what I have said this afternoon, he will see that we are second to none in believing that national parliaments must remain the primary focus of democratic legitimacy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I had the privilege of serving on the IGC sub-committee. I very much welcome the fact that in the Statement there is strong support for the role of the independent court in deciding what the law is and what European legislation is meant to be. However, there are two aspects of the Statement that I do not entirely understand. I should be very grateful to the Minister if she could deal with them.
First, do the Government agree or disagree with the IGC sub-committee when we say that at present no suitable tribunal is available, apart from the European Court, which could sensibly be given the job of interpreting and applying conventions drawn up under the justice and home affairs pillar? It is not clear to me whether the Government have accepted that.
Secondly, there is a reference to entrenching subsidiarity in the treaty. Is there not a danger that by doing that and making it, as lawyers would say, justiciable, we would turn the European Court into one that had to deal with political questions rather than legal questions? If that is not to be the position, who in the system will decide how the principle of subsidiarity is to be interpreted and enforced?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's second question, it is clear that the role of the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court should continue to be strictly limited. That is exactly what we say in dealing with the whole question of justice and home affairs, in which I know the noble Lord is extremely interested. The answer which he seeks about the recommendations on the ECJ of your Lordships' sub-committee is one to which I shall return because a final decision has not been taken upon it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I hope that the Government will be successful when they start these negotiations. However, can my noble friend give more details about the sentence on which the whole of her Statement is based? One sentence at the beginning of the Statement refers to the benefits we have already derived from being a member of the European Union and suggests that we ought to look with sympathy at remaining there, extending our commitment and moving in certain directions. Can my noble friend give a list
768
of the benefits we have obtained through being in the European Union? I should like to know what those benefits arc. When I have had a brief answer on occasions the Government have mentioned an increase in trade. But that has nothing to do with membership of the Union. That has happened because we have become more competitive and have offered better quality. I should like a clear explanation to justify the statement that because of the benefits we have already derived from our membership we ought to go on with it.
When subsidiarity was first announced I asked the Government to define it. I asked what was the meaning of subsidiarity. At the time I said that it meant that any decisions we make here will automatically be accepted by the others because under subsidiarity, with our special knowledge of our own affairs, that is what should happen. However, that is not the definition that others have applied and it certainly is not the definition that has applied in the way we have been dealt with. I should like a list of the great advantages that have been brought to my country as a consequence of our membership of the European Union.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend has raised this issue on many occasions. He asks about benefits to the United Kingdom. Many of the benefits are indeed in industry. The majority of respondents to a CBI survey last November showed clearly that they had greater trade opportunities and efficiency savings. Many of those things could not have happened without our membership of the European Union. I can refer my noble friend to all types of information but I shall not give him a list at the Dispatch Box today. I ask him to read the introduction. If, when he has read that and the other material that is available, he then wants a list, I shall write to him.
My noble friend referred to subsidiarity. If he reads the whole of paragraphs 20 and 20(a) of the White Paper he will find exactly what we have always said. Subsidiarity is only to do, at European level, those things which will bring benefits which cannot be achieved by member states acting alone. I believe that that has been clear throughout our debates in the nearly four years that I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend for what she said on the issue of defence.
Lord Henley: Order!

Education (Student Loans) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
SIMILARITY OF TERMS
(". No subsidy shall be paid in pursuance of arrangements under this Act in respect of any private sector student loan whose interest rate or repayment period differs from that available in respect of a public sector student loan.").
The noble Lord said: We put this amendment forward in an attempt to establish some kind of—I pause before I use the phrase "level playing field"—between public and private loans. I dislike the idea of a level playing field, but it has now become such a cliché that we know what we are talking about. The level playing field, of course, in any sport that I have had anything to do with does not matter a toss because you change ends at half-time. When you are used to playing rugby as I was on a pitch that was on the top of a coal tip, and sloped viciously from one end to the other, and if you were 13 down at half-time, you reckoned that you were probably in with more than a fighting chance. The level playing field has become a cliché which we must all observe.
On looking at the way in which this Bill had gone through its various stages in another place, I found that there was a crucial moment in the debate when the Minister of State confirmed to my honourable friend Mr. Bryan Davies, MP—and I quote his exact words:
"If a lender wishes to offer different terms, including a shorter repayment period and lower interest rates, that is a matter between it and the borrower".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/95; WA col. 120.]
I would first like to establish from the Minister, if he can help us on this, exactly what the phrase means:
"If a lender wishes to offer different terms, including a shorter repayment period and lower interest rates".
Does that mean both together—namely, a shorter repayment period together with lower interest rates—or could it be that it means that the lender offers a lower interest rate alone? It is a grammatical or syntactical point. It is a question of whether,
"a shorter repayment period and lower interest rates",
is a double object or a pair of alternatives. If I put it as a grammarian, does the word "and" there mean that or could it mean "or"?
In any case, such a deal would have to be agreed between the lender and the borrower at the start of the contract. Nearly all students in my 40 years of university teaching are unaware, even at the start of their final year, whether they are going to be employed at the end of their course—unless they are medical students or people in similar positions—nor do they know what salary they will be on. Such preferential terms, if that is what Mr. Eric Forth meant, would be a practical proposition only for those with a private income, or whose parents, or whose rich and ingenious friends, found the idea of a low interest loan, providing a principal to invest at high interest, to be an attractive one. I can well see why it might, but is that what it is for? In our view such a scheme is not an appropriate use of taxpayers' money.
Added to that is the fact that the choice of whether to offer preferential terms, or indeed any loan at all, would be solely up to the private lender. We have said again and again that the choice is not that of the students choosing their lenders but of lenders selecting their students in the private sector. There has never been any sense that a private sector lender would be obliged to offer a loan to a student regardless of that student's condition or acceptability.
Ministers may argue that it is not the state's business to interfere in commercial decisions. We have heard that defence put up more than once already today. It is surely, however, the state's duty to be even-handed. If the Government believe that all students require a certain level of financial support, which would seem to be the logic behind the diminution of the grant at the same time as we have an escalation of the loan facility, then it would be wrong to use taxpayers' money to give some a better financial deal than others at the direction of the private companies that can be induced into this scheme.
But if the attraction of private student loans to students is not to be a financial inducement or a longer term in which to repay, what other form of inducement can a bank or building society possibly offer—a leather wallet, a shiny key ring, a holiday in Tuscany at the bank's expense, the chance of a stake in a lottery where the prize is a big new motor car? We shall be most interested to learn why precisely a student, after being chosen by a bank, should choose that bank rather than the Student Loans Company. As far as I can see, that has never clearly emerged in any of our discussions so far.
This amendment then requires that the interest rate and the repayment period should be the same whether the loan is from the Student Loans Company or from the bank or banks which have read, marked, learned, inwardly digested and, what is more, signed up to the 471 grammes of tender. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said much of what I would have said as the reasons for supporting it. He quoted from the Minister of State in another place, although I believe that it was in answer to a Parliamentary Question; but that is a detail. I shall not repeat the quote. But it leads us to look at what sort of student borrower might be taking advantage of this provision and be likely to qualify for these preferential rates, whether they be a shorter repayment period or low interest rates or both. It may be that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is that the reference should be "and/or" in the quote.
In the Second Reading debate I puzzled as to who wanted to take advantage of the provisions in this Bill. I said:
"the only people who may have wanted this Bill are those better-off parents who can afford to invest a low-interest student loan to attract a much higher rate of interest".—[Official Report, 19/2/96; col. 922]
I believe that that is exactly what this amendment is trying to address. Many of us know that this happens already under the present arrangements. What we are fearful of is that it is likely to become even more the practice if this amendment is not passed.
It may well be that the sorts of students who are likely to attract this preferential treatment from the bank will be not those who necessarily know what their employment is going to be that far out from the time when they leave university but those whose parents can afford to offer that security. One of the reasons why those parents may wish to offer that security is just that they can get a low interest loan through their offspring,

771
of course, and can afford to invest it at a higher rate of interest. It is entirely a matter between the lender and the borrower—the parent and the child, if I may use that term; the parent and the student—and how they might divide the proceeds. That is a matter entirely for them. It is certainly not something for which we should be using taxpayers' money. That is a practice we are trying to address with this amendment, and that is the reason why we are supporting it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: So that we may understand fully the Government's position with regard to the proposals in the Bill, can the Minister say exactly what the Government intend? Do they intend that all students can choose between a loan from the Student Loans Company and a private sector loan? Do the Government intend that there should be no greater constraints on the loan options available through the Student Loans Company as opposed to the private sector scheme? Do the Government intend that the total cost—that is, the cost to the student and the subsidy to cover the administrative costs of the institutions—will be no greater under the private sector loan scheme than under the Student Loans Company scheme? Can the Minister assure us that the administrative costs will not be greater? Can the Minister confirm that the subsidy will cover only administrative costs and will not be a direct subsidy to the financial institutions? If the private sector lender wishes to offer longer repayment terms, is that merely a matter between the lender and the borrower? In those circumstances, and in the name of choice, would the same options be available to students if they took out their loan through the Student Loans Company?
Lord Desai: I support the amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Following what my noble friend said, I take it that it must be an "and/or" situation. Obviously, private sector lenders will want to offer a variety of "products", if I may use that word, and will try to segment the market as they offer them to students. It would not be desirable to restrict the kind of packages that may be offered. That is fine. Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that it would be fine if the lender wanted to offer a loan at a lower rate of interest to somebody who was thought to be a better risk.
However, the amendment seeks to point out that if lenders do that, it must be because they find it profitable. They cannot offer low interest loans but then complain that that is costing them more than the student will pay. The principle is that subsidies should not be paid when the loan-givers are cherry picking, as it were. That is a perfectly sound, free market principle. Indeed, I would even recommend it to the Minister because I am sure that his party believes in it. Firms which are cherry picking are operating in highly profitable areas and should not, therefore, be subsidised. However, subsidies should be available where the market may find it difficult to make a loan because the risks are too great or because those seeking loans may have uncertain career prospects.
772
I believe that what my noble friends are trying to say in the amendment is that subsidies should he paid only to deserving lenders in deserving cases, not right across the board. I have a genuine question on that for the Minister. Is a subsidy element to be calculated for each product which is offered or will the subsidy be given to a firm across all of its loans? Will a firm be able to offer a portfolio of loans—some good, some bad—and then say, "This is what we need in the way of a subsidy", or is the subsidy to be given only for specific hard cases where the market is thin? I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to those points.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: Oh dear, the party opposite really does not change at all. Noble Lords opposite simply do not like choice. The amendment is designed further to restrict the choice that would he available to both institutions and students. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, spoke long and eloquently about the level playing field, that cliché, and his experiences on the level playing field.
We have made it clear that private loans will be offered on similar terms to public ones. The invitation-to-tender documents, copies of which the noble Lord has seen and which are in the Library, make clear that private loan interest rates would he no higher than public ones. Neither would involve real interest rates. Similarly, private loan repayment periods would he no longer.
As the noble Lord knows from the 1990 Act, interest rates and repayment periods for public loans are set out in regulations. Our contracts with the private lenders will provide that any changes to these periods in the regulations will he reflected in similar changes to private loans.
As for the comments made by my honourable friend in another place in answer to a question—I refer to the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, quotedx2014;we think that there is a case for some innovation. That is why the invitation-to-tender documents envisage that private loans might—I repeat "might"—charge lower interest rates in return for a shorter repayment period. I do not accept the noble Lord's point that that would be attractive only to the richer student with his own private means. It might be in the interests of a student, even if he does not know what his future will be, to pay out a larger proportion of his income so that he can get rid of the burden earlier. That would be a matter for him. It is something which the private sector institutions should continue.
I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord on this and other occasions that there is not much else that the financial institutions can offer. I accept that in the short term the terms will be broadly similar and that the emphasis will be very much on service enhancement and on providing a quicker service than that offered by the Student Loans Company. Obviously, a major financial institution can offer a much bigger network of offices which the student can use. Obviously, in the longer term, I would expect new products to emerge as the private institutions develop their thinking in this area.

773
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will accept that in such arrangements the level of public subsidy will be exactly the same. There is the level playing field for which the noble Lord was looking.
That increase in product choice for the consumer, with no downside for either the taxpayer or other students—whatever the noble Lord, Lord Desai, might say about cherry picking—is just the sort of benefit that will flow from the involvement of the private sector. In the longer term, loan products will be increasingly tailored to the needs of individual borrowers. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will feel prepared to withdraw his amendment which I think is unnecessarily restrictive. There is no case for building in such inflexibility.
Baroness Lockwood: If a student took out a loan at a lower rate of interest in order to repay it more quickly, and if that student's earnings were 85 per cent. of the national average, would those provisions apply? If so, surely there could be no certainty that, having taken out the loan at a lower rate of interest, it would be repaid more quickly.
Lord Henley: If I may say so, the noble Baroness shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill. This is a very simple Bill which, in effect, simply changes the system of having one single lender, the Student Loans Company, to having a plurality of lenders. The Student Loans Company will still be able to offer the same terms and conditions, but we hope that a number of other financial institutions will sign up to the advantages that we are proposing for both them and students. Therefore, the same conditions, the same protections and the same income-contingent arrangements will apply. Indeed, it has been put to me several times that there are no income-contingent arrangements in the present system, but under the new system the individual student will be able to have such protection. The subsidy is designed to protect financial institutions from that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister said that there is room for innovation. He said that it was possible to amend the system of repayment to allow for lower rates over a shorter period through the private sector loans scheme. He did not say whether the same freedom and choice would be available through the private sector loan scheme to increase the interest rate and lengthen the period of time to whatever seemed an appropriate arrangement as between the borrower and the lender. He did not say whether the same choice would be available to students who, for whatever reason, chose to take up their loan arrangements through the Student Loans Company scheme.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we now have a ceiling on the cost of the subsidy to the private sector scheme, and that it will be no greater than the subsidy to the public sector scheme. I presume by that that he was referring not to the amount of money that the student borrows but the administrative and any other subsidy arrangement that applies at the moment to the Student Loans Company scheme, and that that would be the upper ceiling for the private sector scheme.
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness is asking me to come back on that point, yes, I made it clear that in this sort of arrangement the level of public subsidy concerned would be the same. I am not seeking to say anything other than that. As regards the earlier points made by the noble Baroness, she will be aware that under the 1990 Act we have an ability under regulations to lengthen the repayment period and to make other such adjustments. That is something that will involve considerable cost, and is something that will have to be addressed in the light of the extra costs.
What we are saying about the private sector is that we see a case, if it wants it, for it to tailor the product in the right way and the manner appropriate for the individual student and, as I put it, to charge lower interest rates in return for shorter repayment periods. It is up to the banks themselves to develop such schemes. They will not receive extra subsidy for devising a scheme that might be of greater benefit to individual students, through a longer or shorter repayment period, or whatever. In that, there is a level playing field.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This is important. Will the Minister guarantee that in the interest of choice, to which we on these Benches are wedded, a student taking a Student Loans Company loan will be entitled to the same range of choices, whether or not as an individual the student chooses to make an application in that scheme or whether the student is forced into that scheme because the private sector turns down the student?
Lord Henley: First, I am fascinated by the declaration made by the noble Baroness that her party is wedded to choice. That is something I had not noticed in some of its more recent confused statements on the subject of education. No doubt we will discuss more of that later.
No, it is obviously for the financial institutions to develop their own packages and personalise them in the appropriate way. I imagine that we will see a number of them in due course. The Student Loans Company will continue to operate as it does at the moment, but, as I said, if we wanted to extend the repayment period that is a matter that can be addressed in regulations. It is obviously a matter that would have serious financial implications.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Will the Minister confirm that he said that the administration subsidy will remain the same for whatever type of loan is made? However, if the loan is for a shorter period, surely that will reduce the administration costs for the bank concerned. So does it not follow that it will be in the interests of banks to minimise the period of the loan to maximise their profits?
Lord Henley: I can confirm that I said that the level of public subsidy will be the same in both cases, but it might be in the interests of individual institutions to charge a lower interest rate in return for a shorter repayment period. That is a matter for them and the individuals concerned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Will the Minister confirm that the private institutions will receive the same administration subsidy for a short-term loan as they would for a long-term loan?
Lord Henley: Obviously I am not going to speculate on how the negotiations will take place between us and the institutions concerned. We have set out roughly the design of that in the invitation to tender and in the draft contracts. Obviously there will be differences between one and another. That matter must be left to those negotiations.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I hope that the Minister will not think it in any way patronising if I say that I am grateful for that. I have not been terribly grateful for his previous answers, but he has given us some factual answers to this amendment, which are helpful and which have illuminated at least me. The playing field looks a little more level, but a bit of a mist has descended over the game.
We learn that private loans will be offered on—I wrote it down—very similar terms to those of the Student Loans Company; that interest rates and the repayment period will be the same unless the private lender decides that they will not be and offers a shorter repayment period and a lower interest rate. That may be and/or, but there is the possibility of offering a quicker service, benefits of a larger network, and other things of which the Minister has not yet thought. I can well see that there may he other fringe benefits which could be an inducement: greater protection, possibly; greater long-term benefits for being signed up with the particular bank over a particular period.
I do not want to pursue this matter any further tonight, because I want to take away what the Minister has said, read it tomorrow morning and think about it at much greater length. I think that he has offered us what we have asked for on this amendment. Because of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Subsidy in respect of private sector student loans]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("(1B) No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) unless the arrangements referred to in subsection (1A) have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend has, on a number of occasions, reminded us that this is an enabling Bill. It enables the Government to do rather a lot. I am not all that fond of enabling Bills. When they exist in an almost total vacuum of information, I like them even less.
The Bill as it now is seeks authority on behalf of the Government to write cheques payable to unnamed persons, on dates unspecified, and for amounts unknown. On top of that, it makes absolutely no provision for scrutiny. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to deal with Amendments
776
Nos. 4, 9 and 21 which are in my name. It would save me, and relieve the Committee from enduring an unnecessary amount of tedious repetition by me.
By Amendment No. 4, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and I seek to ensure not that we interfere in the course of negotiations with the private sector institutions, but that when those negotiations are completed the conclusion is submitted to an adequate form of parliamentary scrutiny. That does not seem much to ask.
It is the Government's wish to enlist the private sector institutions to take the risk—to use my noble friend's words on Second Reading—to he responsible for raising and lending much of the money (a total of £5 billion) and bearing most of the risk. The Committee should consider that on the previous occasion the private sector institutions showed no interest in participating, and so far as I am aware there has been no ugly rush on this occasion. Indeed, we are informed that the National Westminster Bank has declined the invitation to tender which was contained in that extraordinary document.
In passing, I venture to comment that we in this country appear to have developed a real taste for complexity. It is generally accepted that once one gets into matters of finance there is something indecent and naive in even attempting to express a point simply. I almost conclude that obfuscation is now considered to be the height of respectability instead of being denounced as it should be.
I suggest that since the necessary information is not available the Government have no alternative but to take the amendment away, if they cannot accept it tonight as drafted, and give it very serious consideration.
I turn to Amendment No. 9. In doing so I wish to lament at the outset the form in which the Bill now stands. A casual reader would soon reject any possibility of understanding the schedule as it stands. I seriously wonder why the legislature cannot have in front of it, in the form of, say, a schedule, a clear statement of the law as it would be if the Government's proposals in the Bill were accepted. Instead we have a terrible mixture of the 1990 Act and the present Bill pancaked together in a schedule which is totally comprehensible without a great deal of unnecessary labour. I have made that point on other occasions and I make no apology for repeating it today. I am happy to see my noble friend in an amenable mood nodding his head.
The Government's purpose is clear enough. They seek the power to subsidise private sector institutions and to amend the 1990 Act. Amendment No. 9 is a polite way—I should hate my noble friend to think that I am minded to be anything but polite where he is concerned—of asking the simple question: would it not be better to wait at least until sufficient of the private sector institutions have shown themselves willing to come to the party? It seems to me that in the meantime the Government would be well advised to apply their attention not to what may happen a long time ahead but to present needs. Perhaps I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, on Second Reading. He said that the Government's aim should be to ensure that,

777
"the loan scheme should be inexpensive to administer and should encourage, not deter, good but poor students from entering universities".—[Official Report, 19/2/96; col. 924.]
That is a simple purpose.
I wish to call in aid the words of my noble friend Lord Renfrew on the same day. He referred to a,
"crisis which may soon become a catastrophe".
He later said:
"Damage is being done now to the higher education system and the Bill does nothing to rectify it".—[Official Report, 19/2/96; col. 928.]
Those are serious words and they deal with the present situation. However, the Bill concerns itself only with an uncertain date in the future, and that while everything progresses as the Government would wish. I believe that the Government have every reason for putting the measure on one side and returning to the immediate perils with which higher education in this country is confronted.
I turn to Amendment No. 21. It is important that arrangements for repayment should, as far as possible, be simple, fair and realistic. There will be problems of default—indeed, there are already—and there will be increasing arrears. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend of the wise comment on the subject made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth on Second Reading. She said that under the present arrangements it is virtually certain that arrears, which have already grown to an unacceptable level, will increase further.
Much the simplest way of achieving a fair and orderly repayment system would be to have it handled by the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has the advantage of knowing the names, addresses, earnings and debts of all concerned. No other body has those advantages. It would be unnecessary to create a new organisation. Therefore, even if my noble friend does not leap to accept this sensible amendment tonight, I hope that he will indicate that he will take it away and look at it carefully. If he cannot accept the amendment I hope he will come forward with a form of repayment which takes account of current earnings. It is stupid and cruel for this House of Parliament to lay down that in the future students who have been given loans but who are not earning sufficient to have even the hope of repayment shall be required to do so. My noble friend and the Government must come to terms with that need.
I wish to make clear to my noble friend my discontents. I wish to make it clear to him that they are in no way related to him. He has been good enough to give me the opportunity of speaking to him and he listened patiently to what I said prior to the Committee stage. I am grateful to him for that. My complaint is that only too often the Government, that great big amorphous machine, find it easier to turn a deaf ear to representations to which a great deal of thought has been given and which we think are important. Coupled with that unwillingness to listen, there is a certain refusal to learn from experience. I find that intensely irritating. I can just, by a stretch of the imagination, entertain the idea that I am capable of being irritating to Ministers and their advisers. Indeed, I know that that is so. But I
778
hope that Ministers, and in particular their advisers and superiors, will understand just how profoundly irritating they can be when they do not appear to listen and learn.
I make my position clear. My hope is that this evening the Minister has a discretion to move a little and that he will undertake to think again on behalf of the Government. Now that they have appointed Sir Ron Dearing, I hope that the Government will see that there is rather less point in focusing entirely on the long-term issues at the expense of the short-term immediate crisis. As my noble friend said in the words that I have quoted already, that crisis may turn into a catastrophe.
I shall listen with the greatest possible interest to every word and every nuance of my noble friend's reply. If he cannot as a minimum at least allow the possibility of some scrutiny following upon the conclusion of the arrangements which the Government hope to make, then I shall be obliged to take that very painful course and seek to divide the Committee. But I am sure that that will not be necessary on this occasion. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: That is an extraordinarily difficult act to follow, but I must try. I strongly support all that my noble friend said. There has to be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the arrangements referred to once the nature and cost of those arrangements is known. The market-testing to which the Minister referred on Second Reading has already required a new invitation to tender after the decision taken by the Government in this Bill not to implement the scheme for private lending until 1997 rather than 1996. Of course, the outcome of the negotiations cannot be known; that is, the Government will not know who has tendered and on what terms until at least after Easter. Nor, we understand, will the private institutions know until then what will be the cost of rejigging their computer technology and training their staff. Nor will the Government be able, until then, to cost the relationship between the universities, which must still do the paperwork, and two funding mechanisms rather than one.
Given all those unknowns, quite apart from the impenetrable language of the tender document, there is no clear set of proposals for us to legislate upon other than the simple propositions that commercial negotiations, of their nature, must be secret, with which I agree; and the Minister wants a blank cheque. Not only that, but, as my noble friend said, we are being asked to sign three blank cheques because we do not know the date, the amount or the payee. The Minister is asking for authority to sign all those three blank cheques. We know only his signature.
We argue that once those arrangements have been completed and only then can the proper powers of this House and another place be exercised. Therefore, we very much hope that the Minister can find a way to meet us on this point.
My second argument, which I believe is vital, is that, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn said on Second Reading, and as we all argued then with varying degrees of urgency and anxiety, there is a crisis in

779
student funding which cannot wait, as we were told that it must wait, until the whole question of student support is reviewed by the Dearing Committee.
The crisis is a double crisis. First, the shift from maintenance to loan has moved so quickly and is still moving so quickly that graduates going down from 1996–97, if they succeed in obtaining employment at £15,200 per annum and above, depending on whether they followed a three-year or four-year course, will be expected to repay in the region of not less than £90 to £100; and that figure will increase. That is a very sizeable slice of income. For those reading medicine, veterinary science and so on, it will be correspondingly much more. The longer the deferment, the more the interest will mount up.
That is not only a frightening prospect for graduates. I submit that it should also frighten the Treasury. I remind the Minister that in November of last year the National Audit Office reported that:
"As at 31st March 1995, 269,000 accounts were in repayment status. Of those deferment of repayment…had been approved on 122,600 (45 per cent.)".
Payments were deferred because their earnings were less than the required £15,200. By July, according to the CVCP, 187,000 were granted deferment, and there were 9,000 in arrears and 35,000 in default.
The Minister may well see, quoting from a National Audit Office Report, that from 1991–92, to 1994–95, the Student Loans Company successfully collected 94.7 per cent. of the moneys due to be repaid. Only £1.9 million of £35.5 million was uncollected. But that was in the early days of a very small loan. The size of the loan has increased many times over since then.
It seems only too certain that the Treasury is looking at some very large losses. Our argument is that to replace the present inequitable and ineffective method of repayment by an income-contingent pay system would benefit not only students but also the taxpayer. But that must be done now. It cannot wait until 1998–99 which is the earliest date at which it seems to me any of the Dearing proposals would be likely to reach the stage of legislation.
In the context of proposals to extend eligibility, as we would certainly hope the Dearing Committee would propose, and proposals to extend repayment periods in the present system, the Minister said on Second Reading:
"There are powers already available under the 1990 Act … should we wish so to do".—[Official Report, 19/2/96; col. 963.]
That is good. Therefore, let us first defer any further consideration of private sector loans until we have some facts; and secondly, I urge the Government to proceed at once to use the powers already afforded by the 1990 Act to change the method of repayment. If they can change the length of time over which the loan is repaid and a number of other matters, they can change that. Better still, as we have proposed, they should use the present Bill to do that. Such government action would receive widespread approval and the money would come in.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support Amendment No. 4. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, mistook
780
his title on his accession to your Lordships' House. I always think that he should be known as Lord Peyton of Stiletto since he wields the weapon with such grace and precision that it always finds its niche in the Minister's ribs with such satisfaction, at least to me.
Amendment No. 4 is the single most important amendment to this Bill because if the Government felt able to accept it, it would lay to rest a great many doubts and feelings, not of suspicion but of uncertainty. The blank-cheque syndrome has been referred to already. It is such an impertinent request that even the most extravagant promoter of the South Sea Bubble would have paused for a moment of silent shame—no payee, no amount, no date.
I should point out to the Committee that I am not speaking to the linked amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 9 and 21. If this Chamber had an opportunity, were the spirit of the amendment to be accepted, to consider details of payment, repayment and terms—all those matters which are wholly accommodated by the bulk of the remaining amendments—that would he a proper way to legislate. This is an improper way to legislate. It is asking for the irresponsible, uncontrolled, unknowable and unknown abuse of taxpayers' money.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I shall be brief. I shall speak to Amendment No. 4 only, though I would love to speak to the others. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make arrangements—471 grammes of arrangements so far—with private sector financial institutions for the payment of subsidy in respect of private sector student loans. Those arrangements are not to be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny at all. The detailed handling of student loans is to be worked out in the "arrangements" which will also set out the amounts of subsidy payable to the private sector.
Once the Bill is enacted, Parliament will have no further influence over it. So far there is no reporting mechanism or accountability. Once again, all power is put in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is something which we on this side of the Chamber have been worried about in Bill after Bill during the past few years.
The Minister argued in Standing Committee B in another place that submitting the arrangements to the House prior to their agreement would be—and I quote him—a "novel" way of dealing with the negotiation of commercial contracts. We all understand the need for a degree of confidentiality during the negotiations. However, many of the details of the scheme, such as the universities' relationships with private lenders, will not become apparent until those final arrangements have been agreed.
Bringing those arrangements before Parliament would allow the detail of the scheme to be examined before implementation and would set to rest some of the universities' concerns about it. As public subsidies will be paid to the financial institutions, it is also important that the taxpayer is publicly satisfied that they are being well spent and will be properly accounted for. At present that simply is not the case. That is why we support the amendment most strongly.
Lord Addington: The amendment which was moved and the other two that were spoken to by the two Members of the Committee on the other side are most sensible. With the arrangements which will be made under the Bill, we are basically giving the Government a blank cheque. We are talking about commercial arrangements which will affect the future education of our entire population. Surely there should be some sort of scrutiny involved. We are basically asking for Parliament to be allowed to do its job.
The other arrangements refer to a repayment system. Amendment No. 21 refers to repayments being made through a system which would be "appropriate to current earnings". That is similar to the policy of my party. Therefore, the Committee will not be surprised to learn that we support that proposition. A provision which is fairer and which relates to the ability to pay is something which our entire system of financing higher education has needed for a long time.
Lord Henley: My noble friend has grouped Amendment No. 4 with Amendments Nos. 9 and 21. I commend him for doing so. In fact, I tried to do a large amount of grouping, as Ministers always do; but, as Oppositions always do, they ungrouped those that I suggested. I believe that all is fair in that respect. My noble friend wished to group the three amendments in his name and that of my noble friend Lady Park. That, too, is fair enough. However, the amendments are somewhat different in that they cover rather contradictory matters and cannot all be taken at once. I make those remarks only to tell my noble friend that if following what I say he felt it necessary to press Amendment No. 4 to a Division, I would not accept that as binding me on Amendments Nos. 9 or 21, especially as those matters were not addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who said quite clearly that he was not speaking to Amendments Nos. 9 and 21. However, following Dearing, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to support what I have to say on those amendments in due course.
I shall deal first with the two latter amendments. As regards what my noble friend said about the schedule and about its incomprehensibility—for example, how difficult it was for a layman such as he to understand it—I quite accept his point. I can assure him that I shall try to ensure that he has a copy of what the schedule to the 1990 Act will look like as amended by this legislation before Report stage. That will also be available to other Members of the Committee who are having problems following the "legalese", if I may put it that way, of the schedule.
I do not think that I can go further than that; indeed, I am not sure that this would necessarily be a matter where the whole schedule ought to be amended in the form of a consolidation measure. That is probably something that would be better left for consolidation Bills in due course. However, if my noble friend will accept a copy of what it would look like, I am sure that he will find it somewhat easier to understand.
I should like to say a few words on Amendment No. 21. I appreciate that what both my noble friends are attempting to do is to change to a system whereby one
782
uses the tax system for repayments. There might or might not be some merit in such a system. We have certainly argued, as I am sure my noble friends will be aware, against such systems in the past. Indeed, they do incur a certain amount of costs, they can impose a greater regulatory burden on individual employers and there are significant transitional costs. However, I do not think that it would be right or proper to argue the case as to what repayment method should be made available at present, other than to remind my noble friend Lady Park that obviously we have powers to extend the repayment period if the burden on individual students grows in due course. That is something which would certainly be borne in mind if, as my noble friend rightly put it, the burden on individual students increases. But having said that, if one extended the repayment period (as we can do under the 1990 Act), that would have significant cost implications for employers.
It is important for me to remind the Committee that it is only some three weeks ago that we announced the setting up of the committee of inquiry under Sir Ron Dearing. It would be somewhat odd if having announced that committee and having accepted the general idea that there should be such a committee of inquiry—a committee that was generally welcomed on most sides of the Chamber; indeed, I can certainly say that about the party opposite and my own Back-Bench colleagues, and the same was true in the other place—we then pre-empted a large part of Dearing and said, "Well, yes you can do this. You can look into the shape, funding, structure and so on of higher education, but here is one thing we are going to decide in advance and we would rather you didn't go down that track". That would be unnecessary. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 21 when we reach that stage. I give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am much obliged to my noble friend the Minister. Does not the argument that it would be improper to pre-empt Dearing on the method of repayment hold equally good for the Bill that we are now considering?
Lord Henley: Absolutely not. The change that we are making now is, as I have explained, a very small one. It is a change from the singular—the individual Student Loans Company and an individual means of lending—to a plurality of institutions which could offer the loans. I do not believe that that changes the shape or structure. We made that quite clear—
6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I cannot understand the logic of that. It surely pre-empts Dearing. Dearing may suggest something different. The Government have decided that before they consider the question of student loans, or student funding, this measure shall exist. That pre-empts Dearing.
Lord Henley ILord Henley I simply do not accept that. We have a Student Loans Company. We have a student loans system, operating as it does under the 1990 Act. We are making one small change. That does not pre-empt

783
Dearing. The change proposed by my noble friend is actually a major change. It proposes a change from repayments to the Student Loans Company to a scheme—it was suggested at the time of the 1990 Act—using the tax system. There are other suggestions. Some people argue for using the national insurance structure; some prefer a different form of repayment covering longer periods. Those matters, quite rightly, can be addressed by Dearing. To go down my noble friend's route would pre-empt that. I do not think that continuation with the Bill—which is what the noble Lord is putting to me and which is a matter I have addressed in private with him—pre-empts Dearing.
I turn now to the principal and main amendment, Amendment No. 4, moved by my noble friend. I can obviously tell my noble friend that we shall in due course announce the names of the successful private sector lenders following the tendering exercise. But, as I think my noble friend would accept, the actual commercial negotiations have to remain confidential. There is nothing unusual or suspicious about that. It is standard government practice when one enters into commercial arrangements with the private sector. I see no compelling reason why we should make the substantial change of practice required by the amendment.
We expect shortly to be negotiating with the financial institutions which submit tenders. As I made clear, there are still a reasonable number of institutions interested. The process will be competitive and confidential. Out of it we hope to be able to choose a number—as I made clear earlier—of up to, say, four individual institutions in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it would be practical to submit the details of those negotiations to Parliament for approval, nor do I believe it necessary. Indeed I think that the involvement of Parliament in the negotiations would impede them and make them unwieldy. I think, again, my noble friend would accept that.
Obviously, I accept that there are the concerns—the concerns that lie behind the amendment—that taxpayers' money will be paid in subsidy to the private sector lenders. It is clearly right that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of that expenditure. There will be ample opportunity for that. First, I make it clear that while we are determined to realise the substantial benefits of private sector involvement in student loans, we shall only sign a contract with a private lender when we are convinced that the deal is the most effective one for the taxpayer.
Secondly, our contracts will safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and the student borrower. We have already made available in the Library a copy of the invitation to tender documents which have been sent to the financial institutions. They include a standard contract. I believe that together the documents provide considerable detail on how all the key elements of the scheme will operate. Points of detail in the final contracts may well differ but all the substantive issues are covered in documents already available.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that Parliament would have no further control over these matters after the passage of the Bill. That is simply not
784
so. Parliamentary scrutiny of the public spending on subsidy will be through the normal channels of the appropriation accounts, and detailed information will also be included in the department's annual report. We envisage that there will be details of the amount of the annual subsidy paid in order to ensure favourable terms for students; the number of subsidised loans made annually and the total sums involved; the level of public payments in respect of the Government's share of the risk; and, in total for private sector loans, the number of loans in deferment and default. From that information the overall impact in public expenditure terms will be clearly visible. Further, the department is audited annually by the National Audit Office and that would include spending on both public and private sector loans. The department will also be able to examine the private lenders' operation of subsidised student loans to ensure that the government subsidies are correctly applied. The NAO will also—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. I am sorry about that but I want to be careful on this point. I hope my noble friend will make it clear whether the information to which he is referring will be published, or whether it will be reported to Parliament. I do not put the two on the same level.
Lord Henley: I mentioned the detailed information that will be available in the department's annual report. That, as I understand it, is always published and made available to Parliament. Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that annual report and certainly can find time to do so. I am sure that my noble friend will be the first so to do if he thinks it is necessary.
I shall continue with what I was saying on the National Audit Office. I stress that it, too, will have a right of access to the private lenders' operation of subsidised private sector loans. I appreciate that that does not go quite as far as parliamentary involvement before the signing of contracts, which is what my noble friend seeks. However, I hope the assurance that there are considerable safeguards through parliamentary scrutiny will be sufficient to satisfy my noble friend that we are going far enough. If, of course, my noble friend would prefer to have further discussions between this and another stage, obviously my door is more than open. However, I do not think that it would be right for Parliament to be involved in quite the manner that he suggests before the contracts are signed.
Baroness Lockwood: I think the Committee is in rather a difficult situation following the Minister's reply. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, spoke to all three amendments. The Minister, in effect, has said that he is not going to accept the tradition of the Chamber in linking the three amendments together, should the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wish to press his first amendment. If that is so, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would insist upon dealing individually with the three amendments because I think all three amendments are important ones.
I wish to respond to some of the other remarks the Minister made in relation to both Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 9 on the availability of information. It is

785
not just this Chamber that needs the information to be available, and available in a way which is easily followed and understood. It is the whole of the educational world which needs to implement the Bill and all the supporting information to which the Minister referred, and, of course, the students themselves and the parents of students. Therefore, I think the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his amendment, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1 and to rewrite the schedule would be far more helpful to people outside the Chamber who will not be able to see the information that the Minister has kindly said he will make available to us.
Lord Henley: On the second point the noble Baroness made about information being available outside the Chamber, I think Amendment No. 4 is directly related to parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I addressed my remarks to that subject. On the first point of the noble Baroness about my, in effect, ungrouping the three amendments, obviously if amendments which are grouped are consequential on the first amendment, it is the tradition that having accepted one in one form or another, one accepts the others. However, I think the noble Baroness will accept, if she looks at the three amendments, that they are contradictory. One amendment, for example, takes out the schedule; the next amends the schedule. So one cannot obviously accept all three at the same time. For that reason I was making it clear—I have every right to do so as the Minister responding—that I would obviously listen to the debate and would then make a decision on Amendment No. 4, but that does not bind me or the Chamber on the subsequent amendments which are not consequential on Amendment No. 4.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I really do complain when my noble friend says that the amendments are contradictory. They are nothing of the kind; they are just alternatives. The first suggestion I wanted to make was to bury the whole schedule. I did not expect the Government to accept that proposal with enthusiasm. Therefore I suggested as an alternative the very modest amendment about the methods of repayment. To say the amendments are contradictory is just nonsense and my noble friend should know that.
Lord Henley: If my noble friend says it is nonsense I take his point. But the noble Lord would accept that we cannot—as I think the noble Baroness seemed to be saying—accept the noble Lord's Amendment No. 4, and then take the other two. That would be a nonsense and everyone knows it. That is why I was making it clear that my position was that I did not feel bound by the decision of this Chamber on Amendment No. 4, nor should anyone else feel so bound. If the noble Baroness can find the usual paper that comes with the groupings, she will note that it states at the top,
"Although every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal and not binding. It is therefore open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List",
and so make such a decision.
Baroness Lockwood: I think it is in the interests of the Committee that important amendments such as these are discussed together if they are grouped. Clearly the Minister accepted the grouping in the first place, because I understand that the usual chann Baroness Lockwood: I think it is in the interests of the Committee that important amendments such as these are discussed together if they are grouped. Clearly the Minister accepted the grouping in the first place, because I understand that the usual channels were involved.
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness would give way, I accepted them at something like 1.20 p.m. so it was fairly late that they were put to me. I think in terms of the convenience of the House there is nothing wrong with discussing them together, but it was right that I made my position clear, and I suspect it is a position shared by the noble Baroness's friends on her Front Bench, that one cannot take all three together when it comes to making a decision.
Baroness Lockwood: I accept what the Minister is saying about these amendments. I reiterate that all three are very important amendments, but my main point is that the amendments have not been thoroughly aired individually and, therefore, I hope—and I expressed this hope in my earlier intervention—that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will exercise his right to bring them before the House again in due course as we reach them on the Marshalled List.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: May I start on an agreeable note? First of all, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for his promise to make available in the next stage of the Bill a version of the schedule to the 1990 Act which will contain the amendments presently suggested by the Government, so that we will be able to understand with reasonable ease what the schedule was intended to mean in its new form. That would be helpful.
May I now address the points which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood? At the beginning of my remarks I did say, and I remind her now, that I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to deal with all three amendments together. It would save me some breath and the Committee the weariness and tedium of listening to me repeating the same points three times, because, although they are clearly not intimately connected, at least they have some relationship to one another. Perhaps I may also make this clear. My present feeling, if my noble friend were to be gracious enough to go a bit further on Amendment No. 4, would be certainly not to move those amendments tonight. In fact, as they have come up at this hour I think it would be much more useful to move the subsequent amendments, or to put them down again for consideration on Report rather than now. My noble friend the Minister has said something about them and I would like to reflect upon them. I assure the noble Baroness that it is not my intention to drop them altogether.
Perhaps I may now return to the amendment to which I attached particular importance. I note all that my noble friend has said. There was a time when I began to be hopeful. But when he offered an alternative to a formal report to Parliament of the arrangements which they had made in pursuit of an authority conferred by Parliament, when he seemed to suggest that the information would

787
be contained in a departmental annual report, not only did I feel it very inadequate but I felt it would come in a totally indigestible and boring form, and not for one moment would I regard it as satisfactory.
I do not want to use rough language to my noble friend, and I know the constrictions he is under from his advisers and his superiors. But let me beg him, because I do not wish to divide the House now, to say that between now and Report stage he will give this matter very serious consideration indeed and will ensure that those whose authority he is bound to acknowledge will lend an ear to what has been said; that they too will give some thought to this matter and will not go down the road that at least appears to suggest that they take the opinions of either House of Parliament lightly.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I always take the opinion of my noble friend "heavily", if I can put it that way.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I did not say "my noble friend"; I said "my noble friend's superiors".
Lord Henley: I will ensure that my colleagues in the department, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, note what my noble friend has had to say. There is so far that I can go in terms of looking at things, and I certainly think there are further discussions my noble friend and I can have between this stage and Report stage. But I have to say to my noble friend that I do not think that parliamentary scrutiny before the signing of the contract is something I could offer as a realistic hope. Whether there might be some greater degree of scrutiny, something beyond a departmental report, that I can consider is another matter, although a departmental report is obviously a public document. Whether my noble friend will accept that and be prepared to consider on this occasion withdrawing his amendment is a matter for him. I leave it at that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Is it really impossible and unheard of for contracts to be negotiated and made conditional upon the approval of Parliament, which is going to pay?
Lord Henley: It would constitutionally be very, very unusual.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I accept what my noble friend has said. But please will he not even consider for one moment that enshrining the conclusions reached with the private sector institutions in something so pedestrian as a departmental report, which neither House of Parliament could think of devoting time to debate, would be inadequate? I hope he will dismiss that totally from his mind.
Lord Henley: I do not take quite the same view as my noble friend about departmental annual reports. I thought what I said earlier in response to his invitation to me to intervene would have been sufficient—that I would consider whether something a little more than a departmental annual report was sufficient.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The mere mention of a departmental annual report brings it down to a measure
788
and a level which I find totally inadequate. Until my noble friend makes it quite clear he is not suggesting that something just marginally above the level of a departmental annual report would be sufficient, until he dismisses that idea, I must say I would be very unhappy indeed. His offer now really has to be that the Government will put before Parliament a full report of what they have done. I would accept that. But you cannot say we are going to sign this subject to Parliament's will. My minimum requirement is that there must be a special report to Parliament. It should have nothing to do with a departmental annual report. There should be a special report to Parliament setting out the precise terms and exactly what has happened. There will then be an opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to express their views as to whether what has been done is acceptable.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that I can go much further to help my noble friend. I make no promises from the Dispatch Box, but I made it clear that I would consider whether we could go further. My noble friend will have to decide whether he accepts my word that I and my right honourable friend will be prepared to consider whether we can go further. However, I can make no promise beyond that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very sorry that that is the case. It is not a question of whether I accept my noble friend's word. I always accept it without difficulty. I am worried about the constraints under which he is acting. If he cannot now accept that Parliament must have a chance to review the conclusions which have been reached in its name after the signing of a contract (I do not say that that should be before the signing of a contract) then I do not see that I have any alternative but to take the opinion of the Committee.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Desai, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Gallacher, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Geraint, L.

Brookes, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Glasgow, E.

Butterfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Gregson, L.

Chorley, L.

Grey, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Crook, L.

Hamwee, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

David, B.

Harrowby, E.

789

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Peston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rea, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale,L.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rochester, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Russell, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kirkwood, L.

Seear, B.

Lawrence, L.

Sewel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tope, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monkswell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

White, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hothfield, L.

Abinger, L.

Howe, E.

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kingsland, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E

Layton, L.

Bethell, L.

Leigh, L.

Blake, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McConnell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cadman, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Peel, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renton, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goschen,V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sharples, B.

Hardwicke, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harlech, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmsworth, L

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

790

Swinfen, L.

Ullswater, V.

Tebbit, L.

Wilcox, B.

Teviot, L.

Wynford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Young, B.

Trumpington, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall require any person to whom subsidy is to be paid who refuses to make a private sector student loan to an eligible student to provide the student with a statement of reasons for the refusal."").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to reopen an inconclusive and distinctly unsatisfactory debate which took place in Standing Committee B of another place on 19th December last, at cols. 104 and following of the Official Report, on the subject of privacy and credit rating for students seeking loans.
Creditworthiness is an essential virtue in this monetary age. Members of the Committee may have seen on television last night a documentary by that very agreeable company Granada Television on the ease with which one person can assume the identity of another. An entirely innocent young woman, Susan Cobb, had her identity stolen by a drug dealer who obtained a copy of her birth certificate. Miss Cobb knew nothing of that until she was refused credit by her bank. So also were her parents because the address had been blacklisted and so was everyone living at it. This went on and she was deemed not to be creditworthy even after the impostor was caught, tried, found guilty, sentenced and in prison. Creditworthiness is a vitally important thing that we have to preserve, certainly more than virginity in this difficult age.
A student is forced to seek a loan. He or she has no choice. You cannot live on a maintenance grant alone. You cannot live on a maintenance grant plus your earnings as a barperson or a sweeper-up of floors. You need to have the facility of a loan if you are going to do anything like justice to the academic demands of the course on which you are engaged. A student is forced to seek a loan and he may endanger his creditworthiness with no reason whatever given. It is that which seems to us unjust. That is the reason for bringing forward the amendment. I hope that the Minister will explain why this statement should not be given to a student. I hope that he will explain more fully how the ombudsman can operate. I hope that he will accept the amendment.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. The Minister said several times tonight and on previous occasions that he is keen to encourage choice. As I understand it, the objective of the scheme is to offer that choice to students. But we are asking, indeed the Government wish to encourage, students to move from a scheme where a loan is guaranteed through the Student Loans Company into a private sector scheme where there is no guarantee that a loan will be forthcoming. It is important that they are offered the security of knowing the reasons

791
that they are refused a loan. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, the refusal of a loan can affect the student's creditworthiness for many years to come. We all know of and hear about stories and occasions where dreadful and appalling errors of fact are made, completely unknown to the person concerned. If the students have no knowledge of the reason that they have been refused a loan, they can suffer for that whenever they seek creditworthiness in the future.
For better or worse, some form of student loan, by whatever term and by whatever repayment method, will he a fact of student life. We have to seek a way of offering students at least the reassurance that if they have to embark on a private sector loan the refusal of that loan will not blight them for many years to come in their attempts to seek another loan.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to offer reassurance on a point which is of great concern to many students, and will be increasingly so. Without such a reassurance, the Bill will be even more flawed than it is already.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The points have been made succinctly by the two previous speakers. Choice is available for the banks; it is not available for students. Students need money to exist. I believe that that puts them in a different category from other borrowers of money. The Government are requiring them to make this application to incur debt. The banks may refuse that application. That puts the student in a different category. For that reason, students should be better treated than other applicants. If they are informed as to why their application has been turned down, they can either put some misapprehensions right, or they will know the problem for future applications.
Amendment No. 7 also provides an imaginative way of meeting our concern. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's principled arguments as regards putting students in the same category as those who wish to borrow money for cars, houses or any other reason. Why should students be treated in the same way when undertaking such a vital task as getting themselves properly educated?
Lord Henley: I dare say that we shall reach Amendment No. 7 in due course. I had originally wanted to group the amendments but I believe that the party opposite wished to "ungroup" them.
The amendment highlights a philosophical difference between our approach and that of the Opposition. We believe quite simply in the benefits of private sector involvement and the freedom it must be given to deliver those benefits. I suspect that the Opposition are mistrustful of the private sector and want to regulate it into inertia.
To get the benefits of the private sector, you need to work with the grain of the private sector's approach. It would be quite wrong to impose particular rules on how private companies should deal with loan applications. They are lending and risking their own money. That is one of the points behind the Bill. They must be free to reject applications; and they must be free to decide what to tell
792
such applicants. We would not dream of doing so where, for example, students are refused current accounts or graduates are refused mortgages.
I appreciate that we are talking about public money in the form of subsidy. But the money risked on a loan is largely the private lender's. If we are to involve commercial practices, we must trust them. We cannot trust them and over-regulate them at the same time.
I think that the concerns on this issue are simply disproportionate. I do not accept that private lenders will be falling over themselves to reject applications, or that they will be secretive about their decisions.
I believe that it will be a strongly competitive market. Private lenders will not commit themselves to student loans unless they are keen to be major lenders to students. They will be committed to securing a fair share of the market. They will not achieve that by being over-selective or secretive.
Those students who are rejected will have the ability to turn to competitors; and the Student Loans Company will still be there as a formidable competitor available to all. I believe, therefore, that it would be as unreasonable as it is unnecessary to put on private lenders the restriction that the amendment imposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also asked about the role of the banking and building societies' ombudsman who will be able to consider genuine complaints from student loan borrowers about the service that they receive from the private lenders. I thought that I had made the position clear at Second Reading but perhaps I did not in the time available. Contrary to the remarks made by Mr. Byers (a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris) during Report stage of the Bill in another place, the ombudsman will look into complaints about an institution's refusal to offer a loan provided that the complainant has a piece of evidence of substance, however small, that the institution acted unfairly or illegally in granting a loan. I am certainly confident that the ombudsman will offer a rigorous and effective safeguard.
As we are only on Amendment No. 5 at twenty to seven, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He clarified the matter of the ombudsman. He did not make clear why a student should not be entitled to be given the reasons for the refusal of the loan under the Bill. However, at this hour of the night it is time that we got on. We shall return to the question of creditworthiness on Amendment No. 7. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall require any person to whom subsidy is to be paid to maintain confidentiality in relation to any details provided by eligible students and, in particular, not to make available to any third party (other than the eligible student concerned or to the Secretary of State) without the applicant's permission any information on whether an application by an eligible student was accepted or rejected or the reasons for such acceptance or rejection."").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I accept that when a student seeks a private sector loan, as when anyone seeks any type of loan, he or she must expect to answer questions about himself or herself and the financial circumstances. That is necessary not only for the lender's sake but for the applicant's sake, to ensure that he or she is not over-committed.
Confidentiality about the student should be maintained to a particularly high degree. It should apply not only to the information supplied by the student but also to the decisions that are made to deny a loan to the student applicant. As I understand it, the Data Protection Act 1984 already protects the confidentiality of the loan records of a student. If so, it would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that. It is important that lenders should not be able to pass on to others—particularly credit reference agencies—any information as to whether a student loan application has been rejected and the reasons for such a rejection, if any have been given.
I know what is the normal behaviour in the private sector and fully understand it. If I am asking for special treatment for students, it is because at the stage of life of a normal student one would not wish any stigma to attach to a refusal which would detract from—I use the same word as my noble friends when debating the last amendment—the creditworthiness of the student. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: There is not much more to say. As might be expected, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has put the case very well. This is another amendment concerned with the future of students, and it is important that it should be supported.
Lord Henley: I hope I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that his amendment is unnecessary. It may be helpful if I say a little about it. In seeking to regulate the flow of information from lenders of subsidised student loans to other parties the amendment assumes that other parties (in particular, I presume, other lenders) will have something to gain from knowing why a lender has rejected a student's application.
As mentioned earlier, private lenders will to some extent have their own selection policies and procedures. Just because a student has been rejected by one private lender, it does not follow that he will be rejected by all the rest. As the noble Lord will appreciate, such information can quickly go out of date anyway. I do not believe that a private lender will reject applications out of hand on the basis of old information about a student.
In any case, as the noble Lord is aware and as I mentioned, there is already significant protection. It is right that lenders should not be allowed to provide third parties with information for the purpose of soliciting goods or custom. The Student Loans Act 1990 prevents that and we intend to keep the provision. It will be applied to private sector lenders. In addition, there are specific safeguards in the Data Protection Act, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It may be helpful if I set out what they are. They require that a financial institution be registered and that the
794
registration includes details of what information it will hold, for what purpose it will be used, and to whom it could be passed.
The borrower has a right to know what information is held and to have any mistakes corrected. Borrowers also have the right of access to all personal computerised records on them held by a lender. Banks and building societies would have to follow those requirements in their dealings with student borrowers, as with other lenders. I do not believe that further safeguards are required. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall read it closely. At this stage I can safely withdraw my amendment while reserving my position for the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) A refusal to an eligible student of a private sector student loan shall not be regarded as a refusal of credit for any purpose and may not be required to be declared in any other application for credit."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment returns to the question of creditworthiness and specifically the refusal of credit to someone whose loan was refused by a private sector bank. I am perfectly content to leave the elaboration in the capable hands of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This amendment is of some importance to students who may suffer if they have to declare that they have been refused a student loan in any subsequent application in their financial lifetime. It is intended to underline the fact that a student is obliged, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to look to this form of loan. It is not a matter of choice but of necessity. If relatively few safeguards are to be imposed within the scheme, we respectfully commend this one on the basis that it is a necessary protection for students.
As has been said, the Bill is skeletal. We do not know the arrangements. We have no likely opportunity of reviewing them, bearing in mind what happened on Amendment No. 4. This is an important matter. One would have thought that it was not an issue that the Government would feel comfortable resisting. However, we shall see.
Lord Addington: The amendment refers to disclosure of a refusal to grant a loan to a student. Students would probably say that their financial situation could change radically when they stop being students. That fact is behind the amendment. However, it has been pointed out already that students have no choice but to apply for the loans. They are a necessity.

795
Students are calling for a subsistence level of income. Surely, a refusal should not be raised when their record of creditworthiness is being considered in later life.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that I should not feel comfortable in resisting the amendment. I have to say to him that it is a matter for me to decide as to the degree of comfort I feel rather than for him to impute it. I have to resist the amendment for two reasons. First, it goes considerably beyond the scope of the Bill. It seeks to regulate not only the private lender of student loans but private lenders of every kind. It is also unnecessary and impractical.
The amendment seeks to give a student refused a loan from the private sector the right to withhold that information whenever he applies for credit again. I sympathise with the feelings behind the amendment and the concern about students refused loans from the private sector possibly having a hard time getting credit in the future to buy a house, a car, or whatever. However, financial institutions, whether they be lenders of subsidised student loans or lenders of mortgages to graduates, must have the freedom to make commercial decisions. It would be wrong to expect a credit institution, when considering a mortgage application, to make a special exception for an applicant because he was refused a student loan by another institution.
In any case it is wrong to assume that future prospective lenders will have a great deal to gain from knowing why an applicant was refused a student loan some time before. They will all have their own selection policies and procedures, as I said earlier. The applicant's circumstances will also have changed. One should not make assumptions about the weight that past information will carry. I therefore consider the amendment unnecessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Will the noble Lord say why he thinks the proposal is impractical?
Lord Henley: First, I consider that it goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I also think it wrong to impose such an obligation on the financial institutions, which must have the appropriate freedom to make their own commercial decisions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is very important to be clear about what my noble friend is saying and about the implications of the Bill. If a student is refused a subsidised private sector loan, can he or she then apply for an agency loan? If so, is that information confidential—so that we know what a student might do if he or she wanted a loan but was refused it by the public sector?
Lord Henley: If a private institution refuses the student a loan, as I have made clear more than once there will always be the availability of the Student Loans Company. It would always be possible for an individual to go to the Student Loans Company.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is confidential under the Bill, is it not?
Lord Henley: Obviously it would he known that the individual had a student loan—it would come from the Student Loans Company. The point I am making is that the private sector institution should be free, should it so wish, to take account of a refusal of a loan. That is a commercial decision that it can make. The individual student will always have the availability of a loan. If he fails in the private sector, there is the Student Loans Company.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Does the Minister appreciate that I am not speaking about feelings of discomfort, because discomfort is entirely subjective like questions of taste? The question I understood to have been put was: if a student is refused a private sector loan and then makes an application for a publicly supported loan, is there an obligation to report the refusal of the private sector loan on the occasion of the public sector application?
Lord Henley: I do not see that there would be any obligation to report to the Student Loans Company the fact that the student had been refused a loan elsewhere.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Will the Minister agree that if an individual applies for a mortgage on a house there are two reasons why that application may be turned down: one is the deemed creditworthiness and the ability of the individual to repay; the other is the quality, siting and value of the property? In the case of an application for further credit, often now in these days of computerisation there is merely a box to tick: "Have you, or have you not, ever been turned down for credit before?". Is it not possible that a bank or other financial institution may decide fairly arbitrarily in the case of a particular career option such as dance or fine art that the career possibilities are limited; and may it not rather arbitrarily reject certain careers as being less likely to lead to people being in a position to repay? Surely this is a very different set of circumstances. In the case of a car it is a question of whether the income is adequate. Here we are dealing with a subsidised private sector loan scheme in relation to which judgments will be made about particular careers leading to the ability to repay.
Lord Henley: We shall come to that point when we discuss the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 13, when we can address the matter in somewhat greater detail. The simple point I make is that these matters must be left to the institutions themselves to make their own commercial decisions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is not the same point.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: This is an important amendment, as my noble friend said. We take it extremely seriously. The Minister laid out his position, with most of which we firmly disagree. Obviously we shall return to the matter at a later stage when we have had a good look tomorrow morning in Hansard at what he had to say. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) except where provision is made under the arrangements between the Secretary of State and persons making private sector student loans as to the maximum amount of loan that may be made to a student in any year, having regard to the length of the period of study for students with additional weeks of study in their final year."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in the interests of students of medicine, dentistry and veterinary surgery. Medical, dental and veterinary students face particular problems because of the length of their final year of study. Most study for five years, some indeed for six, as undergraduates compared with three, or perhaps occasionally four, for most students. The longer period of study means that medical and dental student needs are greater and more debt is accumulated.
The most severe hardship is in the final year, when students are at present entitled only to a reduced final year rate of loan. For most medical and dental students the final year begins much earlier than for other students, finishing in mid to late June. Medical students then have to wait until 1st August before starting their pre-registration posts. That short interim period is now increasingly taken up with induction courses, so that students are unable to take up paid employment. The beginning of the final year to the start of employment is over 11 months. A CVCP survey found that nearly all medical and dental students study for between 40 and 45 weeks in their final year. Veterinary students usually have to undertake a number of weeks of extra-mural training in addition to the weeks of term. This is unpaid and eats into vocation time.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals would like to see medical, dental and veterinary students receive the full rate of loan entitlement in the final year of study rather than the reduced final year rate as at present. There is a situation at the moment whereby students studying for the postgraduate certificate of education do receive the full loan in their final year. The same is true of those taking accelerated courses.
It is true that medical and dental students receive extra weekly amounts in mandatory grant as a recognition of the difficulties they face in studying for much longer periods than many other students. But those studying for the postgraduate certificate of education and for accelerated courses already receive these additional amounts in mandatory grant as well as being eligible for a full year loan in their final year. It seems inconsistent and illogical that the same benefits are not allowed to medical, dental and veterinary students. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I very strongly support the amendment. We are all very much aware of the special problems of medical students because of the final year. The average level of debt is over £5,000 for finalists now; and that will go up and up. I cannot help feeling that it is extremely important that they—and, I may add, law students—should have some special consideration of this kind.
798
In Standing Committee B on 9th January the Minister made the amazing statement:
"I am not aware of a shortage of good quality students of medicine".
Why then are we being reproached by South Africa for poaching much-needed doctors? Why are so many of our young registrars from the European Union? This is a very important amendment, not only now but because we have to think about the supply of medical students for the future.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I support the amendment. As mentioned at Second Reading, the length of the final year for veterinary, dental and medical students is such that it amounts to a whole year—at least of 46 weeks. Unlike so many other courses, in my own profession there is now a cumulative requirement of 35 weeks during a course of five years, or six years as it is in Cambridge, which is notionally a complete academic year but has to be taken out of vacation periods. The implication is that these students cannot earn the kind of money that other students earn by doing jobs in vacation periods. In the result, no financial sum is built up over the years to buffer the total cost of university education in vacation times.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in pleading for special consideration to be given to these particular students. I believe that it is realistic to take into account the fact that the final year is a fully subscribed year of teaching (at least 46 weeks) but that previous vacation earnings do not permit a budget to offset the debt that may have accumulated over the five or six years of the course.
Lord Butterfield: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. There is no doubt that the last year of a medical course can be a difficult one. The same is true for vets. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to this request.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Walton, said that this amendment was related directly to medical, dental and veterinary students. I accept that. I imagine that it could apply also in a number of cases to architectural students. In reply to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, as an ex-law student I am not sure that this applies necessarily to them. However, all of us have much less sympathy for lawyers than for doctors.
The Bill is very small and deals with a relatively short point. It is about enhancing the student loan system. It is not about who should get loans or how much they should get. In any case, the matter of rates of loan, with which this amendment is concerned, is dealt with in the Student Loans Regulations, which are reviewed annually, and not this Bill.
Obviously, we are aware of the concerns. They have been put to us on a number of occasions by a number of different bodies. I can assure the Committee that only recently my honourable friend Mr. Forth met representatives of the BMA to discuss their concerns about medical students in regard to this particular issue. The same applies to dental, veterinary and—dare I say?—architectural students. We very much note those

799
concerns and welcome their ability to put them to Sir Ron Dearing. I believe that this is a matter which it is appropriate for the Dearing Committee to look into. If we felt that there were an immediate case—no doubt other representations would be put to us for increasing the support available to these students—we would consider it at the appropriate time when we reviewed the Student Loans Regulations. I am not persuaded that at the moment the existing arrangements for students who have to study for the additional weeks are inadequate, but obviously we will note the concerns and consider them in due course.
I hope that with the assurance that we will keep the matter under review, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will feel able not to press his amendment on this occasion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on these Benches entirely agree that architectural, medical, dental and veterinary students form an easily recognisable special case in matters of this kind. We wholly support the amendment. I regret that my noble friend Lord Winston is unable to be present tonight. He has been delayed at another very necessary academic meeting, if not in an operating theatre. I know that he was most anxious to be here and that he would echo everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I am glad to hear that the Minister's right honourable friend met some of the representatives. I was worried when at the Committee stage of this Bill on 9th January Mr. Forth said that he was unaware of a shortage of good students of medicine, or of dental or veterinary studies, or that the present arrangement was a disincentive. I hope that all Members of this Chamber will find that tone slightly disagreeable.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In the light of the support that this amendment has received from all parts of the Committee, these concerns are real and are growing. It is unfortunate that one may have to wait for the outcome of the Dearing Committee before there can be a proper resolution of this matter. Nevertheless, I am much reassured by the statement of the Minister that he will draw these concerns to the attention of his colleagues and his right honourable friend, and that if they are satisfied—as I believe many of us are—that this is a matter of considerable seriousness, the regulations can, it is hoped, be amended. In the light of that assurance, and in the hope that he will urge upon his right honourable friend our increasingly serious concerns, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF RACE, SEX OR DISABILITY
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under section 1(1A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person by whom the private sector student loan will be made has ensured that the assessment criteria to be used in assessing applications by eligible students do not discriminate on grounds of race, sex or disability, directly or indirectly.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to put on the face of the Bill a clause to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or disability. There is on the statute book already anti-discrimination legislation that covers those three areas. No doubt the Minister would say, as his colleagues in another place said when the Bill was before that House, that it was unnecessary to have on the face of the Bill such a clause because anti-discrimination legislation was already in place. He may even say that it is all the more unnecessary now that the Government have put a reference to discrimination in the terms of the contract. Nevertheless, we feel that it is important to have this written into the statute. It is particularly important to bear in mind the wording of the amendment. It refers to both direct and indirect discrimination. I do not expect finance companies to go in for blatant discrimination in any one of these three areas. They should already be familiar with some of the provisions. Nevertheless, indirect discrimination is much more subtle, and I believe that we should flag it up in relation to this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris in an earlier amendment spoke about lenders selecting their students, not students selecting their lenders. He said that lenders would determine those students to whom they could provide loans. We have to guard against such discrimination, particularly in relation to a financial Bill. I remind the Committee that in the context of sex discrimination, on average, women's pay is still 20 per cent. below that of men. There are already examples of racial discrimination in the education field. As to disability, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is a much newer piece of legislation.
There are all kinds of implications in relation to the education of disabled people. For example, many of the disabled students already need additional funding and they are provided with that funding by the Government. But even then they go to other sources for additional funding to assist them with learning aids. Furthermore, they may have to take longer in carrying out their period of study, whether for a degree or a diploma, than an able-bodied person. In relation to their accommodation, they often need extra care and help to live an independent life. It is important that all these factors should be taken into account. The amendment recognises that and makes it clear from the outset that there shall be no discrimination on these grounds.
All three groups to which the amendment refers and about which I have spoken have a more uncertain future at the end of their period of study. In that sense they may appear to be the "less ripe cherries for picking", which is the phrase that has been used in connection with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment.
Lord Desai: I must apologise that I was not in my place when the amendment was called. However, my noble friend Lady Lockwood has given an eloquent exposition of what the amendment is about.

801
If someone is refused a loan early in life, despite what safeguards one may like to put in place, it will block his creditworthiness for the rest of his life. Therefore, it is important that we should have safeguards in the Bill. We are talking about people who will take a loan when they are 18. It will probably be the first loan they have applied for—I hope it will be the first loan they have applied for; I hope that they are not already in debt. We should ensure that if they are refused a loan by one private agent or another it does not happen on grounds which are unconnected with their true creditworthiness. I can understand that for commercial reasons there are people to whom one would not like to give a loan. But there should not be discrimination on grounds which are irrelevant to creditworthiness and irrelevant to their ability to pursue a career.
I know that the Minister does not like the phrase "cherry picking". Indeed, he probably does not like "level playing field" any more. None of us does. However, it is an established point in economics that when these things are done by the market, the market will not take up "difficult" cases. Who are the difficult cases? They are usually people who are known on objective criteria to be the lower paid. They are lower paid on the grounds of race, sex and disability. We want to ensure that people are not refused loans on those grounds.
I know how these loan applications are processed. One is asked to tick certain boxes on the application form. The young clerks—I do not want to be pejorative—who are supposed to feed the information into the computer add up the score. If one has said that one is black, or a woman, or a disabled person, out one goes before anything further has been asked. I recently had a very nice experience of being asked by one of the Labour Party magazines to apply for a credit card. I applied for the credit card but I did not get one because I did not put myself down as a houseowner. I was honest because my wife is the houseowner and so I could not claim to be a houseowner. But I did not get the credit card. If one is not a houseowner, one does not get a loan. Very crude criteria are used by people who think they are scientific criteria. I bet that some of the criteria on which people would not be given loans are those which I have mentioned. It is very important to lay down these requirements in black and white.
I know the Minister will say that legislation already exists to cover these points. However, I have a suspicious mind about some of these matters. If it exists, fine; adding to it will not make any difference. One would not be imposing extra burdens on the loan givers. Therefore, why not do it? It will be a belt and braces approach. We can be extra cautious. Unless we do so, we will be likely to blight people's careers, especially their careers as borrowers, for a long time.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I understand the anxieties put forward by both the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I was also interested that the noble Lord should tell the Committee in advance what
802
I am going to say. But I shall say it, nevertheless. I hope that in so doing I can persuade the Committee that the steps we have taken are sufficient, and that what is in place is sufficient.
The invitation to tender documents that we have heard so much about this evening ask that the financial institutions bidding should provide details of the credit selection policies and processes they intend to follow. We shall consider that information very carefully in evaluating the tenders. The documents also include a model contract. I can assure the Committee that our contract with successful bidders will include a requirement that they do not commit any act of discrimination rendered unlawful by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Further, I believe that the institutions to which we have sent the tender document are responsible organisations. I do not believe they would be guilty of discrimination or guilty of breaching the law as set out in those three Acts. But if they are, they will be in breach of the law and of our contracts.
I believe therefore that effective sanctions exist to deal with the points that have been raised by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness. Useful though this debate has been, I hope they will accept that the new clause would add nothing to the Bill and that therefore it is not necessary to press it on this occasion.
Baroness Lockwood: The Minister has, unfortunately, responded in the way I expected. I am sorry about that. He clearly has nothing against the new clause. He did not speak against the clause as such. But he felt that it was unnecessary in the light of the arrangements that have already been made. I am grateful to him for the arrangements that have been made. I hope that the scrutiny will be careful.
No one would expect the financial institutions to discriminate. I certainly would not; and, as I said in my opening remarks, I know that they have had experience of the anti-discrimination legislation already operating. Nevertheless, some of those financial institutions, responsible though they are, have on occasions discriminated, and action has had to be taken. Sometimes it has been taken by the Equal Opportunities Commission and there has been an agreed programme of action to eliminate that discrimination. No matter how established a firm may be, there are still dangers, as I said originally, of indirect discrimination.
I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the amendment. It would add to the Bill and be an additional warning to organisations that they must be absolutely sure that there were no provisions likely to affect one sex or disabled people more adversely than others. However, in the light of what the Minister has said, I shall look at the details of the programme which he is suggesting. If I feel that they are satisfactory I shall leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

803
AGE DISCRIMINATION
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under section 1(1A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person by whom the private sector student loan will be made has ensured that the assessment criteria to be used in assessing applications by eligible students do not discriminate on grounds of age.").
The noble Lord said: There are two reasons behind this amendment. It is basically to stop age being used as a ground for discrimination. Ageism is a problem that we are facing more and more in our society. I say that with a certain degree of temerity, realising that I am the youngest person involved in this debate. One may be dealing with people who feel that they have missed out on educational prospects. I hope that that is something we shall never lose sight of in the education system. The other factor which I hope will get a better hearing from the Government is updating skills. For both these aspects we are talking about academic training. In the job market one constantly needs to update one's skills or go through new training processes. With the current level of prejudice against people over the age of 50, it is almost vital that one is up to date.
Currently, one cannot obtain funding for university or higher education courses. The current loan system does not give that support. Surely this is an opportunity to bring in this new provision. We need to bring back in to the system large sections of our society which are becoming almost permanently without hope of employment. If we can retrain them to a sufficiently high level of skills, they will surely stand a much better chance. That, combined with the fact that others may fulfil their life potential later on, is a very good reason why this amendment, or something very similar, should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I believe that there are two points here. First, there is the much wider question as to whether loans generally, either through the Student Loans Company or through the new private institutions, should be extended to the over-50s. I do not believe that that is a matter we should be debating this evening. We have discussed it on a number of other occasions. We have no intention of changing our policy in that regard. I am not sure that this amendment would achieve the point anyway. It would be wrong to press amendments to the Bill which might cast doubt on that policy.
Secondly, on the narrower point as to whether the institutions themselves should have anti-ageist policies, we shall obviously consider the policies of the private lenders on assessing applications when considering their tenders. If we have anxieties on that they will be reflected in our decisions. The noble Lord ought to accept that it is not generally unlawful to take decisions based on someone's age. Therefore, there is absolutely no case for seeking to regulate the private lenders on this occasion as if there were. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is not necessary to press this amendment on this occasion.
Lord Addington: Although it may not be unlawful to discriminate on the ground of age, I cannot help but feel that at times it should be. I was also trying to introduce a provision to correct a major flaw in the current legislation
804
and arrangements. The reasoning behind the amendment was to correct a fault of omission. But the hour is late and I do not believe that I have many allies to my left on this issue.
A noble Lord: There is one here.
Lord Addington: There is a possible disagreement between Front and Back Benches, which is interesting. At this moment I shall resist opening that can of worms. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC STATUS
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under section 1(1 A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person by whom the private sector student loan will be made has ensured that the assessment criteria to be wed in assessing applications by eligible students do not discriminate on grounds of the applicant's social or economic status, or that of his family, as defined by any system of classification.").
The noble Lord said: In this, as in the previous two amendments, we are pushing the same sort of argument. We argue that there are a variety of grounds on which discrimination will be practised unless care is taken specifically to introduce a ban against it. The ways in which discrimination on grounds of social or economic status can take place are very simple. In political discourse we talk about CI s, C2s, the Ds and the Es as though they were separate nations almost. It would be very easy for a form to be prepared on which a student could be asked the father's occupation or income or even his place of residence. That could easily be used in a computer program to grade people as coming from those classifications and therefore count as disqualification. It sounds incredible but that is exactly how many people do not get loans.
We must take care that assessment criteria are not so designed as to facilitate or even mask discrimination on the ground of social or economic status. It is a matter of fairness as regards people applying for loans. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I believe that discrimination on the ground effectively of one's family background and income would be utterly inappropriate for people starting out on a new form of training. I support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In supporting this amendment I ask the Minister to have regard to the fact that there is evidence that finance companies and finance credit rating are often denied to people simply because of the locality in which they live. The student making an application and going straight from school will be using the parental home. There is a danger here of finance companies applying a similar mechanism.
Lord Henley: In view of the hour I shall respond briefly. Here again is an issue which goes to the heart of the differences in approach between ourselves and the parties opposite. There are a number of reasons why

805
this amendment is misconceived in its view of the private sector and the role that it will play in increasing choice and improving service quality.
Perhaps I may first make clear that we neither want nor expect private lenders to assess applications in the way that some fear. On the contrary, we want to involve the private sector so that students get the benefits in service quality of the expertise that it has in personal lending. To get these benefits we need to put a system in place which allows the banks and the building societies to operate efficiently along normal commercial lines.
Secondly, we must not lose sight of the fact that the financial institutions will be lending their own money and putting their own money at risk. In those circumstances, decisions on whether to lend to a particular applicant must be left to the private lenders.
Thirdly, although I understand the concerns that some students might suffer rejection because of their background, I believe that that possibility has been exaggerated. If the banks and building societies tender for the right to offer subsidised loans, they will do so because of the advantages of being in that market in a substantial way. Once in, why should they then take a restrictive view of applicants' creditworthiness? The incentive will be to maximise their share of the market. We trust that there will be strong competition and that they will be competing against other private lenders. They will also be competing against the Student Loans Company, which will obviously have a substantial share of the market. The private lenders will have market share to build up and reputations to protect. Why should they want to get involved in the scheme and then court adverse publicity by rejecting a large number of applicants? I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will feel that the amendment is unnecessary and that their fears are unjustified. I hope also that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can only express deep concern about the tenor of the Minister's response to this series of amendments. We have heard almost an inversion of the words associated with the Statue of Liberty. The Minister keeps referring to the financial institutions wanting to maximise their share of the market. There is no evidence for that assertion. Perhaps their financial motive will be to maximise their share of the market with the least possible risk, having received a subsidy from the Government, from the public purse to help them to offset that risk.
I cannot accept that a young person of 18 will go to the media and make a fuss because the locality in which he or she lives happens to have been turned down by the financial institutions. We are not talking about a purely hypothetical issue. I have experience of it. I worked in a shop which dealt with a finance company. I have to tell the Minister that I came across cases of people being turned down for credit because they were considered unsuitable but, as a mere cog in the machine, I never
806
heard why. However, it was not difficult to spot the trend. It seemed that anyone called Singh or Patel was considered uncreditworthy, although it was impossible to prove. It seemed that people living in a certain area of town were deemed to be feckless because of the location of their home. I have no evidence that people in those circumstances have the confidence to make a fuss or that young people at the start of their careers would want to risk going to the media because they had been turned down.
I find the Government's attitude unacceptable. This is about cherry picking and choice for private sector institutions masquerading under the Government's public statements as choice for students. A student who is discriminated against may have no recourse. I am sorry, but the Government cannot get away with claiming that they are providing student choice. This is about two issues. The first is the Government's wish to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement so that they can have maximum scope for making their own future financial decisions as a government. The second is that they want the private sector to be able to pick and choose between students. I find those answers unacceptable.
Lord Henley: I find the noble Baroness's remarks incomprehensible. They show complete and utter misunderstanding of the private sector. Obviously, we could compel private lenders to accept any application from any eligible student, but such a provision would work very much against the grain of the private sector's approach which I dare say the noble Baroness does not begin to understand. It is doubtful whether such an approach would be acceptable to the banks and the building societies. Frankly, we see nothing to be gained by compelling, first, their involvement and then their acceptance of all eligible applications.
We could seek to persuade the private lenders to take any applicant, but there would then inevitably be a much higher cost in higher subsidies. If the taxpayer were to meet that extra cost of universal provision in the private sector, how could we also ask the taxpayer to continue to fund the operation of the public sector through the Student Loans Company? For that reason, I do not accept what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Addington: Are we not dealing with a universally available system of higher education and are we not referring to its funding on an individual basis? If the financial institutions can pick and choose to whom to lend, they are going against the Government's intention of encouraging greater numbers into higher education.
Lord Henley: The expansion of higher education is something of which we can be proud. I believe that the numbers have doubled and doubled again since 1979. In addition, and in the teeth of opposition from the parties opposite, we recognise that those benefiting from higher education should make some direct contribution to it themselves. Hence we introduced the student loans scheme back in 1990, the principle of which now seems to have a degree of universal acceptance. Having said that, we shall always have the Student Loans Company

807
to provide a loan to anyone who wishes to make use of it. Finance will also be available through the private institutions. Those private institutions have to be free to make their own decisions, on good commercial grounds, as to whom they should accept.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government need to make clear to this Chamber and to people in the country whether they are talking about providing a genuine choice for students with a scheme in which the private sector takes part in return for a degree—I believe that I quote the Minister—of shared risk. The question between us is whether in those circumstances the private sector should be allowed to pick and choose students as it wishes without any control
If that is the Government's approach and if market forces alone are to determine whether or not the private sector takes part, why are the Government putting hard-earned taxpayers' money into subsidies? If the private sector is to come in entirely on its own terms, surely it could do that anyway, yet the Government are putting up public money to encourage that involvement. Surely the Government have a responsibility to ensure that everyone is equally entitled to benefit from that subsidy of public money which has been paid not only by the parents of the young people who will be considered a good risk but also by the parents of those who are not regarded as a good risk by the financial institutions. If the Government are not going to protect the latter, they have no right to use their money.
Lord Henley: The Government are putting money into the scheme by way of the subsidy, but obviously there will be major savings to the PSBR, as the noble Baroness knows full well. The noble Baroness and I do not see eye to eye on the role of the private sector. The Student Loans Company will be able to offer loans to all students. The private sector will also be able to offer loans. Subject to the tenders, we shall allow the private sector institutions to make their own commercial decisions, as is right, as to the granting of their loans. I have made clear to the noble Baroness that if she wants to extend to the private sector a compulsion to accept everyone, against its wishes, she also has to accept that that will cost yet more money. I do not think that the noble Baroness wants that.
Lord Desai: The Minister has been saying that we do not understand choice. That is not the case. If he looks at the experience of the United States of America where there are loans, he will see that there are strict regulations about non-discrimination. We must be careful to ensure that unfairness is not exercised.
The Government are muddled about the free market. They do not have the courage to opt fully for loans for higher education. They considered the matter for eight years, but have now appointed a committee to deliberate on it for another two or three years. Then there is the limited loan scheme, which is a distortion. The Government still say they will not make it fair. That is their choice.
I find it strange that with choice they will not agree to a minimum degree of regulation to ensure fairness. As my noble friend Lady Farrington said, the
808
Government are using the tax money of those who will not get loans to subsidise private companies which are cherry picking. I am sorry to say that again. It is late in the day. I shall have to look at all this. I beg leave lo withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the Committee be adjourned until 8.40 p.m., and that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Children's Services Planning) Order 1996
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if noble Lords will allow me, I should like to express my concern and sympathy, I feel sure supported by your Lordships, for my noble friend Lady Faithfull who has been taken ill today. She is in hospital, and, I hope, being well looked after by the NHS. I hope that she will make a speedy recovery. The order is a subject close to my noble friend's heart and I know she would have wished to have been here had she been able.
The order is under Section 17(4) of the Children Act 1989. It amends Schedule 2 to the Act to make it mandatory on local authorities to plan children's services; consult a wide range of agencies; publish the resulting plans.
The services referred to are those provided by local authorities under Part III of the Children Act. They are some of the most important. They are for children who are deemed to be "in need". The Act defines children "in need" as those who without local authority services would be "unlikely to achieve or maintain … a reasonable standard of health or development",
or whose
"health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired",
or who are disabled.
In other words, those are children who must have that extra bit of help if they are to be given a fair chance in life. These are children whose families need support, or children whose parents—for whatever reason—cannot look after them. They are truly personal services aimed at individual children and families and a challenge for local authorities who have to plan and provide them.
The Children Act has always required local authorities to provide services to children "in need" and to publicise them. But in 1991 Sir William Utting in his report Children in the Public Care recommended that:
"The Secretary of State issue a direction requiring local authorities to produce and publish plans for children's services; the Department of Health to issue guidance on the content of plans and monitor their implementation."
The following year, local authorities were advised that they should produce and publish children's services plans. Two studies subsequently undertaken by the Social Services Inspectorate showed that in 1993 the majority of local authorities were heeding this advice and intended to produce plans; in 1994 many authorities had addressed the task with much thought, thoroughness and creativity, but that the standard varied and the picture was not uniform.
The Audit Commission report Seen But Not Heard published in 1994 represents the second "big push" to establish planning for children's services. It drew attention to the overlap, yet lack of co-ordination, between health, education and social services. It promoted joint planning as a means to make resources go further. The report recommended that the Government should take the lead in raising the status of children's services plans by ensuring that they were joint, mandatory and published.
In response to that call, we announced in June last year that we intended to make an order to make the planning of children's services and the publication of the resulting plans a social services function by amending Part I of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989.
A draft circular and guidance were issued for consultation last year. I am happy to be able to report that there was strong support for our proposals from local authority organisations, social services departments and the voluntary sector. Not one voice opposed the proposal.
We are issuing guidance to explain the order and to suggest what local authorities could think about when planning services. It will not be "Section 7" guidance, as we do not want to be prescriptive. We recognise that those plans must meet local needs, solve local problems and reflect local patterns of inter-agency co-operation.
Inter-agency co-operation is vital. The order requires local authorities to consult health and education authorities, NHS trusts, certain voluntary organisations, the police, the probation service and other relevant bodies. This is a wide range. But they have a core common interest—the sound development of children. Children's services planning is about forging alliances between those agencies. The way they work together is crucial for children and families. They will have different perspectives and different priorities, but that core common interest should underpin their willing co-operation in planning children's services.
We are not making inter-agency co-operation mandatory. We know that good partnerships exist, not because legislation demands it, but because all the agencies involved realise that it is the only way to
810
deliver good quality, efficient and economic services to children and their families. We want to encourage others to that realisation.
The Government are setting a modest example. The guidance on children's services planning will be issued jointly by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment and will be distributed by the NHS Executive and the Home Office.
The voluntary sector is also recognised as a key player. It has a distinguished history of providing services for children and families and its contribution has always been acknowledged.
While the order specifies consultation with statutory and voluntary agencies, they should not be the only ones involved in the planning process. The Children Act stresses the importance of working with children, parents, family and carers. Children's services are not something "done" to the people who use them. They must be designed to suit children and families and not vice versa. So the guidance encourages local authorities to listen to users, involve them in planning and take their views seriously.
Today people expect to be more involved in the services they receive. Thanks to the Citizen's Charter, there are now, quite rightly, higher expectations of public service. Citizen's Charter principles should underpin children's services planning, as should the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK in 1991.
This order offers a real opportunity for all agencies concerned with children to sit down and plan services which are effective, efficient and meet their needs, and those of their parents and families. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first, I echo the Minister in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, well, and say how sad on we on these Benches were to hear of her sudden illness.
We on these Benches welcome this important amendment to the Children Act. As the Minister has explained, there was wide consultation on the proposals contained in it. We do not intend to be the lone voice opposing them. As she said, it attracted universal support.
The order will provide a secure basis upon which children's services can be jointly planned and executed. In many areas of course the statutory and voluntary agencies which are now explicitly included in the order already work together to provide a co-operative approach to the needs of each child. Their best practice will now become a mandatory requirement for all local authorities, and that is greatly to be welcomed.
We are especially delighted that the Government have decided—perhaps one can say somewhat uncharacteristically—to create a national gold standard, because too often in our view they are content to leave the detailed administration of the social policy entirely

811
to local discretion. That (what we see as an abrogation of central responsibility) has often led to unfair discrepancies between services in different places.
It is therefore particularly significant that the Department of Health has decided to take a proactive lead to ensure universal standards and procedures for children's services. We hope very much that the order will produce coherence and equality.
The Government were stimulated to act by the Audit Commission report Seen But Not Heard, as the Minister explained. At the time of that report only one-quarter of the authorities visited had developed a joint approach for planning for children in need. The Audit Commission noted the ambiguity between the roles of professionals and the fact that services were often unfocused on the specific needs of one individual child.
Disturbingly, the report spoke also of a lack of evaluation and stated that there was little information about the impact of the £2 billion a year that is spent on community health and social care for children. Sadly, there have been many tragic cases in recent years where children have been seriously abused or even murdered by members of their families. However, local agencies already knew they were at risk. So often a subsequent inquiry has cited lack of co-ordination between agencies as a primary cause of a child being inadequately protected. Perhaps schools did not keep in touch with social services or health visitors did not report their suspicions to the police. Or a child might be discharged from a casualty department with broken bones and then fall through any follow-up net in the provision of services. Now co-ordination will be obligatory and it is to be hoped there will be fewer disastrous cases to inquire into.
Co-ordination is equally important in considering less extreme circumstances involving children. Problems such as truancy, school exclusions, petty crime and drugs misuse should benefit from the joint approach which will be the result of the order. I am particularly pleased that the order includes voluntary agencies in the consortium approach. Local voluntary sector workers are so often able to gain the confidence of families in trouble, perhaps more quickly than statutory services. The voluntary sector should play a central role in an effective framework of children's services and it is right that they will be automatically included through the new legislation.
In 1994 the Audit Commission stated in summary that the Government could raise the status of joint children's service plans by making them mandatory between social services and health and education authorities and requiring them to be published. At last the Government have acted. We welcome this national approach to strategically planned and co-ordinated services for families and their children in need.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I welcome support from the noble Baroness. I am not surprised because it echoes the strong support that we have received from local authority associations, individual authorities, voluntary organisations and professional bodies. We believe that the order represents an important step forward for children. We know that
812
careful planning in consultation with other agencies can result in a seamless approach to the provision of services. If families can receive the services and he supported at an early stage some of the most drastic interventions, which we believe are so traumatic, may be avoided. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, by way of general introduction to the order, I should explain that the statute law governing the procedures for the selection, summoning and empanelling of juries in Northern Ireland is found in a series of measures enacted between 1828 and the present day. This order is primarily directed therefore at consolidation of the several statutory provisions in this area but the opportunity has also been taken to modernise the legislation and to make some adjustments, some of which will bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales.
The draft order was subject to the normal public consultation which is part of the procedure for all Northern Ireland Orders in Council made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The value of this consolidation measure, and the contents of the order in general, were broadly welcomed on consultation. Accordingly, I propose to concentrate on explaining those provisions which effect significant alterations to the existing practice whether those amendments are proposed in order to align more closely with England and Wales or to take cognisance of distinctive considerations relevant to jury practice in Northern Ireland, or to take proper account of comments made in the course of consultation.
I turn then to the provisions of the order. Article 3, Article 10(2) and the associated schedules—that is, Schedules 1, 2 and 3—set out the details of those who are eligible to serve, those who should not serve, and those who may serve unless they opt to claim excusal.
The existing law in Northern Ireland recognises only two categories; those who are disqualified from jury service and those who are exempt. In both cases the prohibition on jury service is absolute. That is clearly necessary and justifiable in respect of disqualification. But the provisions on exemption are unduly rigid and their effect is to prevent some persons—such as the holders of specified senior public offices and the caring professions—from serving on a jury even when they would wish to do so. The introduction of a new category of persons, set out in Schedule 3, described as excusable as of right will remove this absolute bar on jury service as regards some of the persons who at the moment cannot serve on a jury in any circumstances. At the same time an absolute and proper prohibition in certain circumstances, such as where there is a connection with

813
the administration of justice, is preserved. The lists of those falling into the revised categories are also required of necessity to be reviewed, modernised and rationalised in several respects.
In essence therefore the order re-categorises the structure of jury qualification with the overall purpose and effect of bringing Northern Ireland more closely into line with England and Wales. The new provisions will draw a clear and useful distinction for the first time in Northern Ireland between those who are disqualified because of, for example, the gravity of their criminal record, those who are ineligible, and those who, because of vocation, profession or age may claim excusal from jury service as of right.
During the consultation process a number of issues were raised which are now addressed in these particular articles and schedules. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the law on juries in England and Wales. Several consultees drew attention to those amendments and asked that equivalent changes be considered in the context of this order. I have accepted, and this order reflects, that Northern Ireland should be aligned with England and Wales in two further important respects.
First, members of religious societies or orders the tenets or beliefs of which are incompatible with jury service will be entitled to be excused from jury service as of right. Originally this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and was subsequently approved by Parliament for jury service in England and Wales. I believe that your Lordships will agree that those in Northern Ireland with the same conscientious objection should have the same entitlement.
Secondly, the 1994 Act amended the Juries Act 1974 so that in circumstances where a potential juror suffers from some form or degree of physical disability, but is nonetheless capable of acting effectively as a juror, the judge is required to affirm the summons. In the interests of justice, of course, the judge must retain a discretion to discharge the jury summons. Article 11 of the order will make the same provision for Northern Ireland. Again, the emphasis is on the responsibility of the judge to affirm the summons unless he is of a view that the person in question is incapable of acting effectively as a juror.
The order consolidates without amendment the existing law concerning the various types of challenge to service on a jury which may arise in criminal and civil cases. Articles 13 through to 17 deal with these arrangements. In consulting on this specific consolidation the Government have recognised, of course, that there are arguments both for and against the existing arrangements. In the absence of conclusive arguments for change and in the context of well documented support for retention of the existing rights to both peremptory challenge and Crown stand-by, the Government have concluded that there is no compelling reason to interfere with the long established practice at this time. This may be particularly so in the context of a measure which is principally directed at consolidation rather than fundamental review.
Article 21 introduces a new power in Northern Ireland which has been available in England and Wales for some considerable time. At present in Northern Ireland on the death or discharge of a serving juror in a criminal trial the case may proceed only with the written consent of both parties. The existing arrangement has the potential to disrupt trials unnecessarily and is considered unduly inflexible. A valuable improvement is made to existing practice by this article to allow the trial to continue at the discretion of the judge in such circumstances, subject to special arrangements in capital cases.
I turn now to Article 27 which will enable me to prescribe by secondary instrument, subject to negative resolution, the oath taken by jurors. In England and Wales and in Scotland the oath taken by jurors has been reviewed and, as a result, simplified and modernised. The form of oath taken in the rest of the United Kingdom is, I think, recognised as concise, appropriate and intelligible. By comparison the oath used in criminal trials in Northern Ireland remains in its antiquated and somewhat arcane form. The power to prescribe the oath is likely to be used in due course to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. I think it is fair to say that the need for change to the oath has been widely acknowledged. Given that the modernisation is likely to involve a removal of a specific reference to the sovereign, however, it would be ingenuous for me not to recognise that there may be some who attach what I believe to be an unmerited significance to this aspect of the proposal. The retention of a reference to the sovereign is not thought to be an essential part of the jury process elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and the Government do not see that there can be any reasonable objection to align Northern Ireland in this respect.
Finally, I think I need draw the attention of the House to only one other specific provision of the order. Article 31 brings juries in coroner's inquests within the statutory framework for all other juries. The arrangements for juries in inquests are at present outside the formal scope of the juries legislation in Northern Ireland although in fact the procedures for selection and summoning of juries from the relevant divisional jurors list has been used by the coroners in making arrangements for inquests for a considerable time. Article 30 and Schedule 4 formalise those arrangements.
Although the order is primarily a consolidating instrument, and nonetheless valuable for that, we have taken the opportunity to review some of the present arrangements and to make some sensible adjustments which, although relatively modest, will be beneficial. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for outlining the thinking behind the order. I know that he has had stormy waters to navigate recently, which I think he navigated with admirable patience and calm, as always. It is not my intention to be in any way controversial. I simply wish to ask one

815
or two questions. I recognise entirely the burden on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recently and, if it is thought more suitable, I should be more than happy with a written reply.
The first question derives from Article 15. I understand the retention of challenge for cause of up to 12 jurors to be merely an illustration of what the noble and learned Lord indicated as being special circumstances in Northern Ireland. I quite understand that.
I have a question about Article 21. That allows the sensible procedure available in England and Wales of the continuance of a criminal trial where a juror dies or is discharged for a proper cause by the presiding judge. My question arises in relation to the phraseology in relation to Article 21(2). The exclusion offered there by way of example is:
"On a trial for any offence punishable with death paragraph (1) shall not apply … unless assent to its then applying is given in writing by or on behalf of both the prosecution and the accused or each of the accused".
My dim recollection is that if that is intended to refer to murder, as it does in this country, where the sentence is life imprisonment, that is the occasion when written assent is called for. It may be my misunderstanding of the alternative sentences available in Northern Ireland.
I should have thought that if murder is punishable with life imprisonment in Northern Ireland, Article 21 should be phrased slightly differently. I put forward that suggestion extremely tentatively because I may have an imperfect understanding of the position. But I believe, with some degree of trepidation, that that article may not be worded properly to achieve the desired objective.
I concur with what the noble and learned Lord said about Article 27. There may be some anxieties about altering the form of the oath but I believe that the safeguards provided in that article—namely that a specific order is required subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament—are proper and appropriate.
As regards Article 31, anything which improves the system of coroner's juries in Northern Ireland in my view is a useful advance. Therefore, subject to the particular question relating to Article 21, which may be as a result of my misunderstanding, I welcome the order.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his support for the order and in particular his support for the provisions to which he referred specifically; namely, the continuation of the arrangements for peremptory challenge and the arrangement for bringing coroner's juries within the statutory scheme.
My understanding of Article 21 is that that is the exception appropriate in a trial for treason. That is an offence punishable by death. I believe that that is the only type of offence which remains punishable by death in Northern Ireland. Therefore, this provision would not apply to a trial for murder where the sentence in Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, is a mandatory life sentence. Nor would it apply to any other trial in which there is the possibility of a discretionary
816
life sentence. It is intended to apply to the possibility of a trial for treason. I am glad to say that those are extremely uncommon and the more uncommon they remain the better for all of us.
I am grateful for the reception of the order. In particular, I welcome what the noble Lord said about the jurors' oath. That is the provision which has concerned me most and I particularly welcome his support in that respect.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that elucidation of Article 21(2). But if I understand Article 21(1) correctly that means that in a murder trial, provided that the reduction in the number of jurors is not fewer than nine, the judge may direct the continuation of the trial without the assent of the defendant. I believe that to be different in England and Wales where the written assent of the defendant is required if there is a shortfall. That may be a gap in the order.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my understanding of the order is as the noble Lord has just said. I do not recollect exactly the position in relation to England and Wales. I am being referred to the corresponding position for England which states:
"On a trial for any offence punishable with death subsection (1) shall not apply",
and so on. Therefore, the information I have at present suggests that that is the position in England and Wales also. However, in view of the question raised by the noble Lord, I shall check and, if I am wrong about it, I shall write to him. However, my understanding is that the provision to allow the trial to continue at the discretion of the judge so long as the number of jurors is not reduced to fewer than nine applies in every case except where the offence is punishable by death which, as I said, will only be for a crime of treason. That would be a highly exceptional circumstance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 to 8.40 p.m.]

Education (Student Loans) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under section 1(1A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person by whom the private sector student loan will be made has ensured that the assessment criteria to be used in assessing applications by eligible students do not include consideration of the applicant's course of study or the institution he attends.").
The noble Lord said: We believe that students should choose their course and their institution on their academic, vocational and individual merits and not because a particular choice would give them a better chance of a private loan with preferential terms. The

817
danger in that situation is that it would give rise to all sorts of opportunities for social and academic engineering depending, as it would, on the prejudices, preferences or the simple whim of a bank manager. For example, a bank manager might not like someone studying philosophy. He might consider that that is an unnecessary call upon the nation's resources. He might feel that he does not like lawyers, in which case he would be in remarkably good company. He might even feel that it is a waste of time for someone to be given a loan to study English literature. Similarly, he might feel that Oxford and Cambridge are not the places to be in and that everyone should be supported who is in the London School of Economics.
As we see it, the Clause 1s, again, an anti-cherry-picking device. The DFE's terms of reference for the Dearing inquiry are helpful in that respect saying, as they do, that the committee should have regard to certain principles among them that,
"there should be maximum participation in initial higher education by young and mature students and lifetime learning by adults insofar as this can be shown to be consistent with labour market needs".
Finally, the terms of reference state:
"Arrangements for student support should be equitable and should not distort students' choices inappropriately".
That seems to me to be at the heart of the amendment that we propose. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: The amendment touches on a most important point and one which I am afraid no one in the current job market will be able to judge with any degree of accuracy. We do not know what the demand for, say, physicists or biologists will be in five or 10 years' time. In any event, who is to say that one very good student of English literature or history will not make a considerably better living than a very bad lawyer? If we start to make such judgments—or allow them to be made by someone else—we will be opening up the whole system to abuse. I support the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps I may inform Members of the Committee that the banks are certainly making such calculations at the present time. When I was taking my post-graduate degree in petroleum engineering, I was constantly harassed by my bank, which was forever offering me more convoluted ways of getting into debt. I suppose that the manager thought I was a good bet. Banks do make those calculations. The concern which the amendment seeks to address is to stop them from doing it even more. I also support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that there is much more that I can add to what I said earlier in response to other amendments where, to some extent, we went through very similar arguments. Indeed, I would put forward the same sort of arguments on this matter. I reiterate what I said earlier. I reject the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, about bank managers. It is an honourable profession and one that I am sure will make decisions in the appropriate manner.
818
Speaking as a lawyer—and I notice that one or two other lawyers are present in the Chamber—I must say that I rather resent the noble Lord's attack on lawyers. However, I do recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, put it, that there is a distinction between the very good and highly successful lawyers, of whom at least two are sitting opposite, and those who might or might not have been called to the Bar who one might describe as being not very good lawyers. It is possible that banks might wish to make distinctions on that basis. I should stress that I am thinking from my own personal point of view.
I also note what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said about what I shall now call the "Dearing terms of reference". Those matters ought to be considered. As I said, we have agreed to consult and take note of the concerns expressed about the terms of reference; and, indeed, about who should be on the committee. However, I believe that that is a matter for another occasion.
All that I can add to what I said earlier is to say that we have asked prospective private lenders to include in their tenders details of their policies and processes for considering applications. We have also asked for an estimate of what proportion of applicants they might reject. I can tell noble Lords opposite that we shall look very carefully indeed at their responses in evaluation of the tenders. That is something that my right honourable friend and the department will take most seriously. If we are not satisfied, then clearly that would be a factor in our decision on which tenders we ought to accept.
Having said that, I can only underline what I said in response to earlier amendments. The amendment may be well intentioned, but I believe that it could prove to be counterproductive and unnecessary. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the matter on this occasion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I should point out to him that I did not leave lawyers alone in my castigation; indeed, I also included my own subject as well as the Minister's. There are people who might even feel that they should discriminate against English literature and who believe that someone was wasting the nation's resources who spent three years looking at Shakespeare and Milton. I would not be among them.
I am relieved to know that the tender document will take the matter seriously into account. Indeed, I must study the document again and see what is said in the 471 grams of "Tender Mark II" in that respect. We have been concerned with the power of the private sector in particular cases, especially banks, to influence the free market of student choice which is what brought the amendment to the fore. However, we have aired the matter and, bearing in mind the fact that we may return to it if we feel that we must at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 14:

819
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OR TESTING
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under section 1(1A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person by whom the private sector student loan will be made will not require any eligible student to undergo a medical examination or medical tests.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment I should like to refer to an earlier debate regarding the issue of disability. I have in mind in particular the importance of all students being treated fairly and equally. There are particular circumstances, such as the identification through medical information and examination of a particular genetic predisposition—though not certainty—of specific diseases. I would argue that it is extremely important that students are protected from discrimination arising from the results of medical examinations or medical tests. In passing the Disability Discrimination Act the Government resisted protecting those who might be considered by others to suffer from a disability, although they did not in fact have it. There was a lengthy debate on that point. In these circumstances it is extremely important that conditions attaching to student loans do not become similar to those attaching to private insurance. I refer in particular to the importance of the Government's stated objective to maximise student choice. This particular category of students would not be covered by existing legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Winston: I hope I may add my two penn'orth to the debate. I apologise for not being present when the early amendments were discussed, one of which was in my name. Unfortunately, I was detained at the Hammersmith Hospital. I feel strongly about the amendment. We must recognise that students are particularly prone to certain diseases suffered by young people, for example, lymphatic diseases such as Hodgkin's Disease, leukaemia and other such illnesses, many of which are treatable. I know of two recent cases where, had a diagnosis been made of the incipient stages of the diseases after a medical examination, it is doubtful whether those students would have been supported through university. One particular student who was at Cambridge had a severe form of Hodgkin's Disease and was given a less than 10 per cent. chance of surviving. I am glad to say that he has not only survived but has also played rugby for his college. That is the kind of student who might have been severely disadvantaged as regards obtaining a loan. I am certain he will obtain a good degree. There are a number of areas where institutions which are considering granting loans might ask for medical records to be provided or for medical examinations to be conducted. Quite naturally, we are nervous about that. I ask the Minister to consider the issue carefully.
Lord Henley: I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that his apology was unnecessary. It was explained to me—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris—that the noble Lord was not able to be here earlier. I completely accept that and regret the fact that we were not able to have the benefit
820
of his advice on that occasion, but no doubt on other occasions we shall hear more from the noble Lord. I look forward to that.
Again, I do not think there is much I can add to what I have said on earlier occasions. Obviously we believe it is important that private lenders must be allowed to decide which applications they accept and what assessment procedure they use. I made the point earlier that they are obviously using their own money, in the main, to do this and they are the ones taking the risk.
As regards disabled students, it was right that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, should raise the question, particularly in the light of the fact that the Disability Discrimination Act reached the statute book only last year. Our contracts with the private lenders—as I think I made clear earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai—will make it a condition that they do not commit any discrimination outlawed by the Disability Discrimination Act. If they do, they will he in breach both of the law and of our contracts. Sanctions are obviously available to deal with any such action.
Finally, as I said on the previous amendment, we have asked private lenders to include in their tenders details of their policies and processes for considering applications. We have also asked for an estimate of what proportion of applicants they might reject. We shall look carefully at their responses in evaluating the tenders. Clearly, if we are not satisfied, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, that that will be a major factor in our decision on which tenders to accept. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for that reply. I would ask that in considering this area particular attention is paid to the issue of those potential students who would not be covered by the disability discrimination measures although the grounds for their rejection might rest on assumptions about their medical condition. We look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that aspect.
Lord Henley: I would say, obviously without prejudice, that I shall consider the latter point that the noble Baroness made in her earlier remarks.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
VOCATIONAL COURSES
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under section 1(1A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 to any person by whom private sector student loans may be made unless that person has indicated a willingness to make private sector student loans to any student undertaking a course of study leading to a vocational qualification.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not dissimilar in feeling and scope to that moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, which stood

821
in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have to declare an interest in that I was chairman of the Bar Council in 1992 and therefore I am still interested in the education of those who wish to become barristers. I have no interest in the Law Society although some of my best friends are solicitors.
The real problem is that no one can become a barrister or solicitor without at least three years' study to achieve a first degree—normally in law—and then, in the case of the Bar, one year at Bar school and one year in pupillage, which is a long period of time for a young person to support him or herself. It is helpful to bear in mind what the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct stated recently,
"Unavailability of awards is a direct threat to … progress [in making law a career as open as possible to people with diverse backgrounds]. It would be wrong to move towards a situation in which entry to the legal profession would be the preserve of the wealthy".
Local education authority provision of discretionary awards has fallen from 39 per cent. of authorities making such awards in 1992, to 19 per cent. in 1993, and to as low as 15 per cent. in 1994. Of those on the Bar vocational course—the Bar school year—three quarters are in debt, and the average level of debt is £6,000. The Bar has notoriously been a profession for middle class, white males. We have done a lot over the past 10 years to make sure that women entered the profession in roughly their proportion in society—about 49 per cent.
Lord Henley:52 per cent.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said roughly 49 per cent. To be perfect it should have been 52 per cent. I am conscious that we fell short by 3 per cent. However, I am sure that many a government would be pleased if they only fell short of their usual aspirations by 3 per cent. It should have been a little higher. We did better as regards ethnic minorities. Those from ethnic minority backgrounds came to the Bar in much higher proportions than the equivalent component in that relevant age group in ethnic minority communities. I am afraid that all that is now starting to fall away. The numbers of women entering the profession are starting to decline, as are the numbers from ethnic minorities.
It is a great shame, therefore, if there is not to be a possibility of loans, which are that and no more. I put forward the amendment in the hope that I shall have from the Minister a similar response to that which he was able to give to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant; in other words, that the problem is recognised and that a kindly eye will be put on the difficulties which are substantial for those who do not come from monied backgrounds, who do not have scholarships or other awards, and whose avenue to local authority discretionary awards has been closed. Nevertheless in many cases they are the brightest, best and most committed students who have most to offer to the legal profession, and therefore to the community as a whole. I tabled the amendment on that basis, recognising that I
822
cannot expect more than possibly a fair wind from the Minister in the same manner as was given to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: It will not surprise the Minister to hear that I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I was for some years chairman of my Inn scholarship committee and a member of the Inns of Court general trust funds committee. I saw many indications of tremendous financial hardship. I appreciated the dedication of the students, the urgent and earnest desire to qualify to be a barrister. But I realise that for all those who were so dedicated there must be many who were deterred and there must be many among those who received what financial help we were able to give who fell by the wayside because, most definitely, of the unwillingness of the local authorities to provide discretionary grants. This is an extremely serious problem if we want to achieve the objective of getting students from all walks of life to undertake vocational training.
9 p.m.
Lord Henley: With some diffidence, following two such eminent lawyers, I should obviously declare my interest in law even if I have never practised. When I first saw this amendment I, and those who advised me in these matters, experienced some degree of confusion about the amendment and I suspect the amendment is drafted in a manner which is not entirely satisfactory. That is my first point.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would accept there are problems of definition—for example, what on earth does a vocational qualification mean—and those matters would have to be addressed. His elucidation of what he was aiming at was useful and I am not sure whether it is a matter for this Bill, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, when I dealt with his amendment. The best thing I could say at this moment totally without prejudice would be that I am prepared to look at these concerns, but I do not think they are necessarily concerns of this Bill. They might be matters that could be addressed in some other way, but they might be matters that could have significant cost to the taxpayer by means of extending student loans on to other classes which are not currently covered.
Having said that, I would look totally without prejudice at the ideas behind what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is putting forward, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I am not hopeful that any solution can be produced in regard to this Bill. It might be a matter for regulation, as I explained to those speaking for the medical professions, so it also might be a matter where the concerns about expenditure again precluded making any changes of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wanted. Having said that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a most generous and helpful response for which I am personally most grateful. Speeches get shorter and responses more accommodating as time passes. I beg leave to withdraw.

823
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
MONITORING
(". Within six months of each anniversary of the granting of the first private sector student loan, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the grant of private sector student loans by sex, age, ethnic origin, disability, institution, course of study and parental income of applicants and showing whether loans were granted or refused and the reasons given and comparing the same with similar information for public sector student loans.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are grouped together and I shall speak to them together. Amendment No. 16 is basically an instrument of monitoring:
"the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the grant of private sector student loans [on groupings of] sex, age, ethnic origin, disability, institution, course of study",
etc. Basically that sort of monitoring is very important when we come to look at how well the system is dealing with many of the problems we have just raised in debates on amendments within this Committee stage. On virtually all the matters that are being addressed to him, the Minister has said that the commercial realities we are dealing with either are being confronted here, or are within the scope of the Bill. Whatever is happening should be monitored. If we have this sort of information we will know who is right should this Bill ever come into effect. Surely that is something that should at least he taken on board in some way by the Government.
The second amendment says there should be an annual review of how the scheme works. I would suggest that, taken as a package, these two amendments provide the necessary instruments for any government to look at how the scheme is working and also provide the necessary information to find out if it is going wrong and where it is going wrong. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: These amendments are a weakened form of the amendments championed so splendidly by the knight on the noble charger, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. It asks for no more than a report with an analysis of the year's work in the matter of the private sector loans. It would, as the noble, Lord Addington, said, be useful if nothing else in that it would solve the question of the ideological debate which divides the two sides of this Chamber, because this report would enable us all to quantify the situation and find out whether there is any evidence of discrimination on any of the grounds that we have been discussing tonight. A winner would emerge, and if for no other reason that would be a very good reason for backing these two amendments. It is vital in any case that proper monitoring and auditing takes place because the amendments that we have put forward are evidence of the misuse, mistakes, malfeasances and distortions which could take place in a Bill so widely drawn as this one. It will make the operation public and so go some way to satisfy the real worries of many on both, nay, on all sides of the Chamber.
824
The usual clichés come to mind and are nonetheless true for being common: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The review suggested here would be even better, in my view, than the annual report of the Department for Education and Employment. This amendment would permit an illumination of both Houses of Parliament in the words of my countryman, Dylan Thomas, when he wrote,
"Light breaks where no sun shines".
I am happy to support these amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In speaking in support of these amendments I would like to add to the points already made the importance of the information being sought and required from the very beginning. It is often the case that when information is required about a project or scheme, or the way in which a particular law works, it is said at a later stage that is very difficult to acquire the necessary information because the information that is available is not set out in the required form. By agreeing the amendments it would be possible for the Government to ensure, at no additional cost, through changing the compilation of information that the information was readily to hand.
Secondly, should the Bill become an Act, the information would be invaluable to those who were in a position to decide what to do about the recommendations of the committee of inquiry following its report in 1997. The information would be extremely useful in those circumstances.
Lord Henley: I appreciate that the amendments are, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, put it, a weakened form of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The noble Lord will have noted the assurances that I tried to give my noble friend before he, sadly, felt it necessary to test the opinion of the Committee. I can assure the noble Lord that they are commitments that I shall continue to consider. Even so, I feel that the amendments would result in further overregulation and would hamper the effectiveness of the private sector.
Having said that, I appreciate and share the anxiety of Members of the Committee to ensure that the new student loans scheme will operate efficiently and effectively and will offer value for money to the taxpayer. It is a concern which, dare I say, all of us in this Chamber share. I also share their anxiety that, to ensure that that happens, the operation of the scheme is subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
As I made clear earlier in response to my noble friend, we shall monitor closely the performance of the new scheme. Once the scheme is up and running the department's spending on private sector loans will be included in the appropriation accounts and the department's annual report. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil are not the greatest fans of my department's annual report. I can assure them that it makes very good reading. I shall ensure that a copy is

825
sent post-haste to the noble Lord whensoever the next one is due. If he would like a copy of last year's report I shall ensure that he receives one.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot but say that I shall keep it closely by my bedside, treasure it and read it with great care.
Lord Henley: I am more than grateful for that commitment from the noble Lord to take what we publish and produce so seriously. I hope that he will find that the standard of the written English in the report of the Department for Education and Employment meets with his approval and the approval of other noble and, dare I say, learned Lords, although they are not learned in the law.
Perhaps I may say a little about what the report will contain in relation to our concerns this evening. We envisage that the report will contain details of the amount of annual subsidy paid in order to ensure favourable terms for students, the number of subsidised loans made annually and the total sums involved, the level of public payments in respect of the Government's share of the risk and, in total for private sector loans, the number of loans in deferment and default. We believe that from that information the overall impact in public expenditure terms will be clearly visible.
I add that the department is audited annually by the NAO. That would include spending on both public and private sector loans.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, wishes to intervene.
Lord Winston: Can the Minister say whether it is also the intention to monitor the faculty or academic discipline of the students in the monitoring process? It seems to me to be important to do that also.
Lord Henley: That is not something that we intend to do. That point relates to the amendment which we debated earlier. All I can say is that I shall give some consideration to what the noble Lord suggests, but it is not part of our plans at the moment. I do not believe that it would necessarily be relevant.
The department will also be able to examine the private lenders' operation of subsidised student loans to ensure that government subsidies are correctly applied. The NAO will also have a right of access to the private lenders' operation of subsidised private sector loans.
I believe, therefore, that the proposed new clauses are unnecessary. I hope that the assurance that I have given about the degree of information that we shall make available will be sufficient. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I am not sure whether the noble Lord meant by his final remarks that the department will monitor the number of applications for loans that are not granted. Will that be included in the monitoring? That would give an indication in relation to the anxiety that some of us have about the possibility of discrimination in the allocation of loans.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I believe that that is similar to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I hope that what I said to the noble Lord—that we have no current plan so to do but that I would consider the point the noble Lord put to me—is sufficient for the noble Baroness. I shall take on board what she said and consider it, using legal jargon, without prejudice.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Does the Minister agree that for the Government to be certain that discrimination on grounds of gender or race does not exist it is necessary for the information to be available in order to justify decisions taken? If there is discrimination against women or minority ethnic group applicants, it is necessary for the Government to have such information to ensure that the money is being spent in pursuit of the Government's objective: maximum choice for individual students.
Lord Henley: I note what the noble Baroness said. Again, I can only refer to what I said in response to earlier interventions. Obviously there is always the danger that the amount of information that one is asked to collect will impose overburdensome conditions on individual institutions. As I said, I am prepared to consider the issue but at this stage I am not prepared to respond in the manner in which the noble Baroness wishes me to respond. It is something that I shall consider.
Lord Winston: I am sorry to press the point. I wish to clarify what I see as a potential problem. I hope that he will agree with me that this situation might arise. Vocational courses such as medicine and law might be better funded in the private sector than, let us say, arts students. That is why I was anxious that there should be some recognition that the Government consider the funding of the various courses to ensure that we do not underfund arts students simply because they may not command such a big salary when they leave university.
I hope that the Minister will bear that issue in mind in his deliberations.
Lord Henley: In seeking yet further clarification, the noble Lord reminds me of my noble friend Lord Peyton who repeatedly sought clarification from me. I do not think that I can add anything further to what I said previously. I take note of what he said.
Lord Addington: Much of the debate has centred on Amendment No. 16. Virtually everyone is agreed that the information sought in the amendment might be useful. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question. Could there be a subsection to this great departmental report which includes the vast number of subjects? At least we would have access to that information if we do not call for an annual review. One would then have a vehicle for addressing most of the concerns expressed during this debate and throughout the day. Will the Minister put this suggestion to his department? It might put our minds at rest, at least for the time being.
Lord Henley: I am incapable of putting noble Lords' minds at rest on this issue. That is exactly what I thought

827
that I had done. I said that I would consider the concerns expressed. However, I stressed that I would consider them without prejudice. What views I come to and what views colleagues in the department come to is another matter.
Lord Addington: At this late stage in the Committee, at least that is something to be going on with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT
(".—(1) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(2) No order may be made under subsection (1) less than six months after the final report of the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education has been published.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to put on record my strongly held view that the whole question which the Bill addresses should be put on hold because of the new circumstances which obtain. It should not be rushed into action or activated prematurely. We should give time for proper consideration and reflection to take place in the entirely new circumstances which have come to obtain since the initial preparation of the Bill.
I refer to the wise decision which has been widely approved to call in Sir Ron Dearing and ask him to report not on student funding but on the whole spectrum of higher education—to do another Robbins Report. The reticulation of one part of higher education to another is sensitive, difficult and important. It would be wise, in my view and that of all of us on these Benches, to pause rather than rush ahead. As the Old Testament writer of Ecclesiastes says in Chapter 3 verse 1:
"for everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven".
I propose that, whatever the merits or faults of the system for private sector student loans, the time to implement this is not now. The time is assuredly not ripe for it. I say that for two reasons. First, the terms of reference for Sir Ron Dearing's committee ask it to take account of context. That includes:
"demand for higher education from suitably qualified applicants of all ages is growing as more people achieve qualifications at level 3 and more of those who already have higher level qualifications look to upgrade or update them".
The Bill makes no provision for older students, part-time students, postgraduate students or FE students. To pass the Bill now and pay subsidies before Dearing reports on matters like that which are bound to be his concern cannot but muddy the waters, discriminate where he has been tasked to be inclusive and disable all the calculations of numbers and resources which he will need to make.
Secondly, it may well be that the "arrangements for student support" mentioned in the terms of reference will go well beyond the present framework and be far more radical than anything envisaged in the Bill. I look forward to something much more radical being considered. Dearing may espouse the idea of student support totally by loan. We must not rule that out. He may well prefer the Australian income-contingent loan system to anything currently on offer here. He may recommend a voucher system for all higher education. That would mean that the whole system now obtaining would have to be unpicked.
Surely it would be more rational, more economical, more prudent to pass the Bill, if we must, as a possible option, but delay its implementation until the Dearing committee has had time and unfettered freedom to think out the best way forward. It may well be a way which none of us has yet thought of. For those reasons I commend the masterly policy of the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, who, noble Lords opposite will recall, died in 203 BC. He was nicknamed "Cunctator", "the delayer". He defeated Hannibal by the simple process of avoiding any direct engagement with him; by not being there when Hannibal and his army appeared and wearing him out by prudent procrastination. Sir Ron Dearing may well bless us for doing likewise. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee to consider Amendment No. 19 with Amendment No. 18 since they are both about commencement. It might push things along and at least I could raise the points involved in Amendment No. 19.
Before we consider commencement, surely we should have consideration of the views of the people who will be eligible to become students and go into the system. That would be appropriate. Further, the case of the higher education institutions should be taken into account. It makes sense to discuss both amendments on the commencement of the scheme and the institutions of higher education now.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support this and the allied amendment. Will the Minister explain how, in terms of the best possible use of public finance, the Government—particularly in the light of their own delay in bringing into effect the system proposed in the Bill—justify the higher level of subsidy that would be required in the light of what is potentially the comparatively short life of the new system? It cannot appeal to responsible and serious private sector finance institutions to embark at this juncture on the high degree of cost involved in setting up what is for them a totally new system so short a time in advance of the report of the Dearing committee.
It is quite clear from the exact wording that it would be open to the Secretary of State at that time to enact this legislation no more than six months after the final report of the committee of inquiry. It would leave an opportunity for the government of the day to consider the report without being fettered by a combination of commitment to high administrative start-up costs and

829
penalty clauses which could act against the interests of the very harmony that the Government have created all round in setting up the committee of inquiry.
Lord Henley: I am more than happy to take on board Amendment No. 19, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested. I hope that will slightly speed up the process. As the noble Lord knows, as does the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I am a great grouper of amendments. The more I can group together, the happier I am.
I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, about Dearing. As I understand him, we are not here to discuss Dearing this evening; and Dearing may or may not recommend this or that in relation to student support and the funding of higher education. We should consider that at the time when he reports some time next year.
The noble Lord raised questions of military history. As Ministers we are asked to respond on a great many matters very often covering departments other than our own. However, on this one occasion I shall not follow him into wider debates on the history of the Punic Wars since on that subject my ignorance is fairly extensive.
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he made a complaint that this Act does not address the question—and these might be questions that Dearing ought to address—of further education students, part-time students or whatever. I agree; it does not. But the important point the noble Lord must remember is that the 1990 Act does just that. By means of regulations under that Act, we could extend provisions for student loans to part-time students and further education students. However, I believe the noble Lord would accept that, were we to do so, it would have major implications for public expenditure. I simply make the point en passant.
The amendment as drafted, and for that matter the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred, would further unnecessarily delay the benefits of the Bill which would be provided both to the students themselves and to the taxpayer. That would not be justified.
As I believe I made clear at Second Reading and on other occasions—and points were made by my noble friend the Leader of the House in response to a request from the Leader of the Opposition—the Bill represents only a limited change to existing legislation. It would simply allow the Secretary of State to pay subsidies to private sector lenders. As the Bill is enabling legislation, a date for the coming into effect of its provisions is not required. They should come into effect immediately the Bill comes into force. Any further delay would not be fair.
The national committee of inquiry into higher education will need to take into account our intention to introduce the private financing of loans. I do not believe there is a case for delaying the Bill while the inquiry proceeds. The inquiry's conclusions will inevitably take some time to implement, particularly if legislation is
830
required. I do not believe that it would be in the students' interests to delay implementation of the Bill until that time.
The inquiry has been asked to take into account in its deliberations our intention to introduce private finance into the loans scheme. It is a very small change to the existing scheme which first introduced those loans in 1990. We are merely changing from a singular lender to a plurality of lenders. Further, we have not signed any contracts yet. I expect that the inquiry will be a matter of concern to private lenders and that before any contracts are signed there will be detailed discussions with them. Whatever happens, we shall meet our obligations in full.
I turn to the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I can give him the assurance that officials in my department have already met representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as have Ministers. They have met the NUS and the Student Loans Company to discuss the Bill's provisions. We stand ready to discuss our proposals with any interested party. As always, my door will stand open to anyone who wants to make submissions to me. More importantly, my honourable friend Mr. Forth, the Minister within the Department who has responsibility for higher education, will also be prepared to meet any relevant bodies. He will certainly consider carefully any representations that are made to him. I do not believe that there is a need for a statutory requirement so to do, nor that the Bill should be delayed until such statutory requirement is met. But I can give the assurance that there will be appropriate discussions as and when necessary.
I hope that that satisfies both the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and that they will feel able on this occasion to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I hear what he says. I am not surprised, and I am not delighted. I feel rather like Pontius Pilate when asked why he had put the inscription at the top of the cross of our Saviour. He replied:
"Quod scripsi, scripsi",
or,
"What I have written, I have written".
What I have said, I have said. In years to come I may look back at this volume of Hansard and will be able to say, like John of Gaunt, quietly to my grandchildren,
"Methinks I was a prophet new inspired".
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (2)(a) after "attending" insert "full or part time".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 covers ground that was hinted at when we discussed mature students over the age of 50. In 1994/95, 28 per cent. of those who took on higher education were part-time students. Part-time students along with older students have suffered rather badly under the loan system. The Government have withdrawn many of their support schemes for the older student. The part-time student has always had a rather rough deal. The amendment is an attempt to bring those students into the main thrust of higher education, for the simple reason that almost inevitably they will become an increasing part of the higher education student base. This will be beneficial. Whatever may be said about the re-skilling of our population or taking advantage of educational benefits, surely part-time students are those at the very heart of it. They are the people who respond on a part-time basis to many of the educational needs which they and society have. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I wish to support the amendment. As we have said from both sides of the Committee, part-time students are not currently eligible for student grants or student loans. Funding remains geared to full-time undergraduates even though the composition of the student body has altered so radically in recent years.
It is perfectly true, as the Minister has just reminded us, that under the 1990 Act loans could be extended to cover part-time students, mature students or any other type of students. The point is that it has not been so extended and there is no prospect of them being funded in this way in the foreseeable future. The reason is perfectly obvious. The cost would be inordinately high—the cost would be impossibly high—which is why, in my view, the entire issue of who should be funded and who should not and who should be eligible for loans and who should not should not be decided by this small and rather insignificant Bill but should be left to Sir Ron Dearing.
Baroness Lockwood: As one who has always supported the idea of bringing part-time students into the whole area of student support, I should like to support this amendment. In doing so I wish to make just two points. The first concerns discrimination, which we have discussed at length over various amendments. The fact that we exclude part-time students from student loans could constitute discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act. I am rather surprised that we have not had any test cases under the Act. I flag that up as a warning to the Government that other government legislation has been challenged in the courts and this Bill is certainly open to challenge.
Secondly, I should have thought that the amendment is in line with the Government's policy of supporting the extension of part-time study as part-time students are much less expensive than full-time students. The Minister said in response to the previous debate that to include part-time students under the student loans scheme operated by the Student Loans Company could involve the Government in considerable expenditure. But that point will not apply to the same extent under
832
the private loans scheme. Nevertheless, one has to balance that with the savings that could he made if more people applied to become part-time students rather than full-time students as part-time students are responsible for all of their expenditure. In support of the Government's policy I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Winston: This problem is particularly important in the field of medicine and biological and nursing sciences. In my own unit we mix all three of those disciplines. We have scientists working side by side with medics in training and with nurses. It is quite common for us to see applications for part-time students to go for M.Sc. courses or courses of that kind. Those students have great hardship in trying to apply for those courses; particularly, a nurse who wants to better herself but who is paid a limited salary or is perhaps working on an attachment in a unit. There is a great need to help these part-time students. The amendment would seem to promulgate the Government's aims and would be a helpful way of keeping people in some employment while they better themselves and improve their qualifications. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Henley: I start by repeating what I said earlier and what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, stressed, and I thank him for it. The 1990 Act, as amended by the Bill, as drafted, does not exclude part-time students from the loan scheme. Through regulations in the Act we can extend the scheme to part-time students and a number of others that I have mentioned.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who stressed that the composition of the student body has changed quite dramatically over the years. First, we have seen a dramatic growth in higher education and, secondly, a growth in the number of part-time students. It is that growth and change to higher education that is one of the main reasons why we instituted Dearing and why we received support from the party opposite, if not from the party of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for the committee of inquiry under Sir Ron.
I was somewhat surprised by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. He said, if I understood him correctly, that he supported the amendment. He quite rightly stressed that the costs would be inordinately high. I have no doubt that he checked that with his shadow Treasury colleagues in another place. I am sure that they would be very careful about any assurance that he gave about public expenditure.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Not at all. I have not consulted my colleagues at all. I simply believed what the Minister himself told me.
Lord Henley: I am absolutely fascinated that on a fundamental matter of this sort there is a not a degree of collective agreement in the party opposite. The noble Lord has accepted that the cost would be inordinately high. Depending on definitions, the cost could be something like £600 million. It is for that reason, and for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle

833
Morris, gave, that we believe these matters should be left to the Dearing committee of inquiry. That is a matter that can he addressed. It is not a matter for this Bill, but one that can be addressed, should there be a major problem, by the 1990 Act.
I end by saying that I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, had to say. Having served in a number of departments which have been on the receiving end of judgments in various courts, I note with trepidation what she had to say about government legislation being challenged on occasions in those courts. If we feel that our case is right we shall continue to resist such challenges as far as is possible within the law. I am sure that we have a perfectly good case. As regards this Bill, I do not believe that there is a case for extending eligibility to part-time students. It is definitely a matter that should be left to Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry.
Lord Addington: I thank Members of the Committee on the Labour Benches who have given rather unexpected support on this matter. It was more than welcome. I expected the Minister's reply. The fact that the scheme may cost money does not mean that it is not necessary. The Dearing report seems to hang very heavily over every sentence that has been uttered in this debate. It has been suggested on more than one occasion—
Lord Henley: For the sake of the record and before the noble Lord seeks to withdraw his amendment, which I expect he is about to do, perhaps I may put matters straight on one thing. I referred both to FE students and part-time students. The 1990 Act allows the possibility of extending the provision to part-time students. It does not give us the power to extend it to FE students.
Lord Addington: I had remembered that and was about to say that it was a pity that further education could not be brought within the scope of the scheme. But that matter is for another day. As I said before, the Dearing report appears to hang heavily over what we are doing here. Although all this may very well be changed soon, it is right that the subject should be aired. I withdraw the amendment for at least this stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: I now come to the Government's amendments. This is a small technical amendment. We judge it necessary to implement fully our policy to limit the number of loans that may be taken out by a student in one year. Student loans are offered under generous terms. Obviously, it is necessary to limit the amount of public money spent on them. We believe the fairest and simplest way to do so is to restrict students to one per year. Regulations under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 do so for loans
834
taken out with the Student Loans Company. We intend that the position should be the same when private loans are available.
The Bill therefore contains in paragraph 3(2)(b) of the schedule a power to limit public loans where an applicant already has a private one. In turn, our contracts with the private lenders would have limited private loans where a public one already existed.
We have reflected further on this since the issue was raised in another place. Our objective in making private loans available is to extend choice and competition. Inevitably, this means that students may well make frequent moves between lenders year by year.
In those circumstances, it is important that our policy of one subsidised loan per year is fully and easily implemented. We have therefore decided to simplify the arrangements. This amendment will delete the regulation-making power in paragraph 3(2)(b) of the schedule. Instead, the general regulation-making power in Section 1(2)(b) of the 1990 Act will be used to limit the number of loans, whether public or private. It is sensible that the number of loans be limited in this way. It is fair to students. It is fair to the taxpayer. The amendment makes our objective more secure. I hope the Committee will support me in this amendment. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I was interested in this amendment, not least because it took me some time to understand what was going on. I think that I now understand and my understanding accords, as far as I can see, with what the Minister has just said. It is a small, technical amendment. It puts me in mind of that other phrase which is well known to lawyers, de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles; except in this case it does.
As the Minister said, Amendment No. 22 covers the question of student eligibility. Government policy is that students should have only one subsidised loan, public or private, per year. I concede that now because it is necessary to control spending for fairness and to increase administrative simplicity. In fact, we on these Benches are not quite as inflexible as noble Lords opposite occasionally feel moved to believe.
I confess that we began consideration of this Bill by being rather sceptical and asking, "Why shouldn't students have as many loans as they want?" We think that we are less sceptical now than we were a few weeks ago. I note that the Government too have since reflected on the complex situation which could arise with students switching from one loan provider to another year by year. I am not sure that they would because I do not really see that there is still very much to chose between the one and the other, but people do flirt and change their relationships, especially earlier in life.
The Minister went on to say that the amendment will delete the specific regulation-making powers in the schedule and that the policy would then be implemented for public and private loans through the existing general regulation-making power in Section 1(2)(b) of the 1990

835
Act. As I understand it, that simply means that the Government are not making a new regulation now when the powers that it would confer are already available.
If I am right in that analysis, it is a tidy little amendment which makes no difference to anybody very much except to the parliamentary draftsman, but it is important that we should satisfy the parliamentary draftsman's rage for tidiness. I think that I can speak on behalf of every student—part-time, full-time, undergraduate, postgraduate—when I say that they will be remarkably unimpressed.
Lord Henley: If that was a welcome for the amendment, I take it in the spirit in which it was given and thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("2(1)") and insert ("2—
a) in sub-paragraph (1)").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. With these two amendments, as with the previous one, I wrote to the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, to explain the purpose behind the amendments.
Currently, higher education institutions play an important part in certifying their students' eligibility for loans from the Student Loans Company. In return the SLC pays a fee for each certificate of eligibility. Our intention is that that should continue.
HEIs will also play a role in providing information on their students' eligibility for private sector loans. Our intention is that they should receive payment for whatever work they do. A number of concerns were expressed during debate in another place over the eligibility work HEIs have to do. One concern was that there was no specific provision for payments for eligibility work on private loan applications. These amendments would remove that concern.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Bill would amend Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. In doing so, it would provide that regulations requiring work on eligibility by HEIs apply to private loans as well as public ones. This amendment would provide that payments can be made to HEIs in relation to work on all loans. Concern has been expressed about the likely volume of HEI work on private loan eligibility and about the level of the payments for that work. I hope that I can reassure the Committee on those points as well.
This Bill, as we know, is about providing a better service for the student consumers. One improvement will be in the availability of a rapid and efficient over-the-counter service through the private lenders' branch networks. To deliver that, the private lenders will probably want to take responsibility for eligibility checking. The invitation to tender documents encourage the private lenders to do so. While the arrangements will he a matter for them, we envisage that in the large majority of cases they will deal directly with the students and no separate work will be required of the HEIs. In a small number of more complex cases they may need to involve the HEIs. But the intention is that
836
it would he for the HEIs and the private lenders to negotiate the terms of that arrangement, including the level of fee which the private lender would have to pay.
However, it is possible that in some cases HEIs may be required by regulation to certify eligibility, and in those cases payment would be provided for in the relevant regulations. It is clear from that that the likely approach on eligibility checking for private loans will lead to a reduced burden on HEIs. The amendment addresses a reasonable concern put to us. I hope the Committee will support it on that basis and in the light of assurances I have given on the workloads involved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert (", and (b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
"(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above may include provision for the making of payments to governing bodies in respect of the taking by them of steps prescribed by the regulations.'"').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, leave out lines 34 to 37.
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26. I do not know whether the Minister has ever found himself in the position of discussing a Bill, a regulation, or an order with officials in his department and heard them say, "I hear what you say, Minister. I understand what you want. I know how you feel. If this is really as necessary as you say it is, then of course we must find a way, but it is going to he very, very difficult".
In the amendment I wanted only to secure full repayment to HEIs, and to ensure that there shall he an independent assessor, to which I shall come later. Following pressure from the CVCP on behalf of universities, the Government have now produced an amendment to secure provision to make payments to universities for the cost of administering both the public and private sector loans. We all welcome that as a step forward.
Currently, universities may be paid for the administration of the present student loan scheme. However, the 1990 Act is permissive so there is no duty to meet these costs. The Government's amendment is also permissive and there will be no duty on private financial institutions to cover the universities' costs in full. The universities are only partially recompensed for the expense of administering the current system. My amendment will ensure that the universities' costs will be fully covered for administering any loans, public or private.
Universities have been subsidising the Student Loans Company for quite some time. There is no reason why they should also have to subsidise the private-sector financial institutions, in particular in the

837
light of the universities' current financial difficulties since the previous Budget. We would welcome a copper-bottomed assurance on that. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Having moved my previous amendments, I am not sure that I can take the noble Lord much further. As the amendments that I put forward demonstrated, it is our intention that the HEIs should be paid for the work that they do in certifying eligibility for student loans. We do not expect that the Bill will create any additional work for the HEIs. Indeed, we expect their workload to decrease. However, we wish to ensure that they are paid for the certification work that they do on both public and private-sector loans. That is what our amendment achieved.
I was somewhat confused by the noble Lord's amendment when I first read it and I am further confused having listened to him. I am sure that at this late hour he has no intention of pressing it to a Division and I should like to look at what he said about it.
838
Perhaps we can have further discussions at an earlier hour at a later stage of the Bill. It would be wrong for me to respond in any other way.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is helpful that the Minister has agreed to look at the detail of the amendment. Will he also look at whether, for example, the Department for Education and Employment considers it necessary to have additional staff in the light of the proposed dual system? Is the same kind of consideration given to the HEIs?
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Baroness that I will consider the points that she has put to me.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am happy to agree to the Minister's suggestion that we should take the matter up at another time and perhaps in more salubrious circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
The Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  West Coast Main Line: Speed Restrictions
  West Coast Main Line: Speed Restrictions
  "Sea Empress" Incident
  "Sea Empress" Incident
  Class 365 Trains: Approval Process
  Class 365 Trains: Approval Process
  Prisoners: Health Care Report
  Prisoners: Health Care Report
  Religious Registration in Prisons
  Religious Registration in Prisons
  Prison Service: Chaplaincy
  Prison Service: Chaplaincy
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Greenwich Site: Future
  Greenwich Site: Future
  Mr. Eric Heath
  Mr. Eric Heath
  Post Office Reward Scheme
  Post Office Reward Scheme
  Benefit Fraud Allegations: Telephone Referral
  Benefit Fraud Allegations: Telephone Referral
  Housing Benefit: Anti-Fraud Work
  Housing Benefit: Anti-Fraud Work
  House of Lords Staff: Location
  House of Lords Staff: Location
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  British Citizens in Foreign Prisons
  British Citizens in Foreign Prisons