Sitting of 20 November 1996

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

Firework Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bates.]
9.34 am
Mr. Richard Burden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. It is only two weeks since the headlines were full of news about firework-related tragedies. On 28 October, a 10-year-old boy, Dale Mitchell from Nottingham, died through the illegal misuse of fireworks. On 1 November, David Hattersley, a head teacher from High Wycombe, was fatally injured during his school's firework display. On 2 November, Stephen Timcke, a City trader from Kent, was killed in front of his two young sons, aged five and seven, at a private bonfire party.
The headlines may have gone, but the consequences of those tragedies live on for the families and friends of those who died, as they do for all those injured by fireworks. That is why the House is under an obligation not to wait for the next tragedy and the next headline, whether it comes next month or next year at bonfire night, but to take action now to improve firework safety.
I secured an Adjournment debate on the same subject in November last year, when I raised questions about the sale of fireworks to the under-16s and the importing of dangerous fireworks. The sale of fireworks to the under-16s is still an issue. In 1995, 825 of the 1,500 firework-related injuries affected the under-16s. We still need to take more effective action to ensure that children are not able to buy fireworks and that a responsible adult is in charge wherever fireworks are used. The Government's zeal for deregulation has not helped us to achieve that, but that is not the issue that I want to spend time on today.
I want to consider firework imports in depth. Last year, I told the House that shipments of Chinese fireworks containing illegal substances had been allowed on to the market in the United Kingdom. Only in October this year, more than a year after authorisation was first given for those fireworks, were the last container loads tracked down. They had been on the market in this country throughout that time.
The Government had unnecessarily scrapped import licences for fireworks in 1993. The Health and Safety Executive's actions in authorising firework imports at the time of last year's debate left a good deal to be desired. Since that debate, its performance in scrutinising import applications has improved considerably, but the procedures are not in place to check that the products for which importers apply and receive authorisation are the
894
same as the products that come into the country and find their way on to the market, and to ensure that those products are properly labelled.
Example after example can be quoted. There was a raid only yesterday—as prosecution is pending, it would be inappropriate to say where it happened—involving a 40 ft container of fireworks that had found its way into a lock-up garage in this country. We must wait to see how that prosecution turns out, but we must ask why nobody knew that that container had come into the country and why it was checked on only once it had found its way to the lock-up garage. Why did we not know? Why did the authorities not know in advance?
Perhaps an even more tragic example is that of Stephen Timcke. He was killed by a mortar shell, which was probably not meant to be on general sale in this country. It was imported from China and all the instructions were in Chinese. He died at a private bonfire party, in front of his two sons. All sorts of questions are raised. Who sold Mr. Timcke the firework? How did the vendor get hold of it? How did it get into the country and—perhaps even more chillingߞhow many of those fireworks are still in circulation and in the shops to this day?
Investigations are continuing and it is right that they should, but it is on that matter that I seek my first assurance from the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford). Will he and his hon. Friend assure me that the Health and Safety Executive will not grant authorisation unless arrangements are in place to ensure that each consignment of imported fireworks is logged at the port of entry, transported directly from the port—sealed—to secure storage at a recognised site and routinely tested before it goes on the market? Unless that is done, authorisation is fine, but there is no way of checking whether what has been authorised is what finds its way into this country and on to the market. The results are tragic and only too plainly seen in the death of Stephen Timcke. It is within the Minister's power to do something about that and I ask for that assurance.
Secondly, on categorisation of the different sorts of fireworks, the Minister began a review of firework safety regulations in March and I welcome his initiative, which was useful. When he takes into account the responses to that review, I hope that he will consider removing bangers from general sale. I met him a couple of weeks ago to discuss that. With 316 injuries last year alone, more accidents involve bangers than any other type of firework. They are easy to abuse, have no visual appeal, are a nuisance to people and frighten animals. They should be taken off the market. I strongly urge the Minister to agree that course when he considers the results of the review.
Some measures cannot wait until the review is completed and the results known. Stephen Timcke was killed by a mortar shell, as was David Hattersley, the head teacher from High Wycombe. The signs are that Mr. Hattersley acquired the shell lawfully. It was probably a category 3 firework, for use in large outdoor spaces. Mortar shells are freely on sale. What are they? I can reassure you, Madam Speaker, that the one I have here is a dummy and there is no danger to the House. It is a dummy of a 4 in mortar shell. It looks like a lethal weapon and we know that, in the cases of Stephen Timcke and David Hattersley, that is precisely what it was.

895
Mr. Hattersley suffered the most appalling facial injuries when the mortar shell exploded in his face—injuries from which he died without regaining consciousness the following day. Such a firework has no place on general sale in this country. It has no place on sale now—we cannot wait until after the review, until next year, or next bonfire night. I do not want to see any more tragedies such as were suffered by Stephen Timcke or David Hattersley, and they were not the first, as someone in Yorkshire was killed by a mortar shell two years ago.
Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Secretary of State has the power to ban by order, for a maximum of 12 months, the supply of anything that is considered unsafe to the general public. He does not have to wait for consultation or for the review. I imagine that 12 months will be long enough for the Minister to complete his review and to consider all the other matters, and long enough for changes to be introduced—either by this Government or by the next Labour Government. Will the Minister assure me that he will not allow lethal items of equipment such as mortar shells to remain on general sale, so that we can be confident that there will be no more accidents, no more Stephen Timckes and no more David Hattersleys, while the review is taking place? The public demand action, and I hope that the Minister will assure me that he will take the action that it is in his power to take, to remove such shells from public sale.
Thirdly, we should consider training, in particular the training of those who use powerful category 3 fireworks, such as the one that I have here, which are on sale to the general public but which should not be, or category 4 fireworks—the category that I should like such fireworks to be put into. Those are fireworks that are not meant to be on general sale to the public, but which are meant for use in displays. According to British standards, category 4 fireworks are not meant to be on sale to the general public, but no clear regulations are in place to specify who is allowed to buy or use them. There are no real restrictions on their purchase or operation. As a result, someone without any formal training can buy and use category 4 fireworks, setting him or herself up to run a public display. Surely that has to end.
My third request to the Minister—again, it is entirely within his power to agree—is that he should establish straight away a national training scheme for those running firework displays and using category 4 fireworks. Will he ensure that no one can run such a display without appropriate and recognised training? For that measure to be effective, we need to control the places through which category 4 fireworks are distributed. Will the Minister ensure that they are on sale only from licensed premises, so that we can see where they come in, where they are stored, who is entitled to sell them, to whom they are sold and who is allowed to operate them?
The Minister might say that that is complicated and difficult to do, but it is not. A model for exactly the sort of scheme that I am describing exists in Canada. Support for such a mandatory scheme comes from a wide range of organisations: trading standards officers and departments have voiced their support, as has the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Consumers Association and the National Campaign for Firework Safety, to name but a few. Responsible members of the fireworks industry have also voiced their support for such a scheme, because
896
they know that it is not in their interests for public safety to be put at risk and for people, who frankly do not have the skills, to buy and use powerful category 4 fireworks. That situation reflects badly on the industry, and responsible members of the industry want it to end.
The Fire Service College has said that it has the skills and is willing to run a training scheme. It only remains for the Minister to give the go-ahead. Will he introduce a requirement for such training and for the licensing of retailers of category 4 fireworks, so that we can be sure that items of equipment such as the mortar shell that I am holding are not used by unskilled or untrained people?
I met the Minister the week before bonfire night, to discuss the Department of Trade and Industry's firework safety publicity campaign, to raise again some of the matters that I raised in my Adjournment debate last November, and to consider the review that he is undertaking and some of the issues arising from it. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as he always does, and I believe that he has the best intentions on firework safety, but we need more than good intentions and reviews: we need action to back those up and prevent further tragedies.
First, will the Minister and the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, who is also involved through the Health and Safety Executive, tighten controls on the importation of dangerous fireworks? That can be done only by checking at the port of entry, transporting the fireworks directly to secure storage and routinely testing them before they reach the market.
Secondly, will the Minister put a temporary prohibition order on sale to the public of mortar shells and similar powerful fireworks that, by any standard, should be in category 4, while the review is undertaken, so that we can be sure that the public are safe in the meantime?
Thirdly, will the Minister establish a national training scheme for anyone who wants to run displays and operate category 4 fireworks, and ensure that those more powerful fireworks are available only through licensed premises? If he is prepared to do that, I am sure that he will have the support of all Opposition Members.
For goodness' sake, let us not wait until the next bonfire night, witness more tragedy and injuries, and ask ourselves why we did not act when we had the chance. Let the memory of David Hattersley and Stephen Timcke be our spur to taking the actions that are necessary to ensure that the public are able to enjoy fireworks in safety and that we avoid any more tragedies of the kind that we have witnessed this year.
9.52 am
Mr. Chris Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing this debate. To my knowledge, this is the second time that he has initiated a debate on the subject. The previous one was on 1 November 1995, and perhaps it is appropriate that this one takes place after 5 November, because there may be a tendency for views to be heightened and emotional when constituents are expressing concern in the run-up to bonfire night and for the emotion to fade away in the aftermath. So we are more able to consider matters rationally and seriously in the cold light of late November.

897
The time is appropriate also because the Government's consultation paper is still on the stocks. The closing date for submissions was 16 October, but I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will take into account the points made in this debate. I welcome the review.
Like the majority of people in Britain, I enjoy fireworks. I have taken part in displays in a family environment since my earliest years and I would not want to deny such pleasures to others. Fireworks are extremely popular in Saddleworth in my constituency, and the Round Table and other local groups take every opportunity to organise displays of a high standard. I hope that my constituents and I will continue to share that pleasure.
My first concern is about the period during which fireworks should be on general sale. The guidelines agreed some years ago say that fireworks should be on sale for only three weeks before 5 November and a few days after. My impression is that those guidelines are becoming loose and that fireworks are on sale earlier than they should be.
This year, fireworks day seemed to go on for a long time, perhaps because 5 November fell mid-week and people increasingly prefer to have family parties on weekends rather than on the due date, and because the weather on 5 November was not pleasant in many parts of the country. I received calls the following week saying, "When is this going to stop? I can't let the cat and dog out because every time it gets dark there are fireworks going off all over the place." The matter needs to be reviewed.
People increasingly use fireworks on occasions other than bonfire night—to celebrate anniversaries or birthdays, for example. We must consider what special provisions should be made to ensure that fireworks are available to those who want them for legitimate purposes, but not so freely available as to extend to the whole year the period during which annoyance is caused to ordinary individuals.
The hon. Member for Northfield referred briefly to bangers. Three weeks or so before 5 November this year, I received a call from the estate management board of Holts village in Oldham, expressing concern about the number of bangers being thrown around the streets and put through letter boxes by youths, causing anguish to elderly people and others. I had another call from someone who had seen youths throwing bangers out of the back window of a double-decker bus.
There exists in legislation a maximum penalty of £5,000 for throwing a firework in a street or public place, but I have never yet heard of its being implemented by a court. The small banger is increasingly being treated disdainfully and used by youths as if it were a home firework. Perhaps that is reflected in the fact that more than 50 per cent. of all accidents with fireworks involve children under the age of 16.
I raised the matter with the managing director of Standard Fireworks and Brocks International last year. In his reply, he said:
"I well understand the problems caused to the general public and in particular the elderly through the misuse of bangers and other noisy fireworks.'
In a revealing and honest statement, which is unlikely to boost his marketing effort, he said:
"The Standard Fireworks banger is the most ineffective banger on sale in the UK today. Our sales have continuously been falling, from a high of 7 million to 2.5 million last year."
898
I acknowledge the fact that Standard Fireworks has been closely involved with the Government in reviewing guidelines and codes of conduct, and I approve of the attitude that lies behind what the managing director said—his letter went on to express his concern about the importation of much more powerful bangers—but the simple, cheap single banger is increasingly being used as a weapon and as a means of disturbing and frightening people in many estates and communities throughout the country. It is perhaps time, as with ripraps, crackerjacks, squibs or whatever, to introduce a complete ban on the sale of bangers.
Most accidents involving fireworks affect young people aged under 16. How do they get hold of such fireworks? It is illegal for fireworks to be sold to people under 16. When the matter was raised in the 1 November debate last year, the hon. Member for Northfield—I remember that I was unable to make an intervention—mentioned that trading standards officers were concerned about how regulations had been changed, because that had made it more difficult for them to enforce the law. The Government said that the existing regulations and laws gave trading standards officers the authority to enforce the rules. However, in practice, trading standards officers still find it difficult. They admit that it is possible to carry out enforcement, but it is more cumbersome, bureaucratic and time consuming and they have other things to do with their limited resources than concentrate on that one problem.
In trying to reduce bureaucracy for small businesses by scrapping the regulations concerned, the Government threw out the baby with the bathwater. Governments are never willing to accept that mistakes have been made, but I hope that in this case they will recognise the due concerns of trading standards officers. I spoke to trading standards officers in Oldham and Rochdale only an hour ago and they said that, against their will, they had made no effort to prevent the sale of fireworks by shops to children under 16, but had referred the matter to the police. They did that because they believe that the regulations are too cumbersome and need revision. I ask the Minister to ensure that he takes the opportunity of the consultation to listen to their concerns and review the regulations. I hope that by this time next year, more simplicity will have been introduced into procedures.
The point of the hon. Member for Northfield that mortar shells are classified as class 3 fireworks was well made. Mortar bombs and the like have instructions that state that they should be used at least 25 m from the public and are clearly inappropriate for most domestic gardens. They should be reclassified as class 4 fireworks.
There is also the increasing use of fireworks to celebrate new year's eve. I go out of my house at midnight on that night and from all the hills around me I can hear fireworks going off and see lights in the sky. The crucial problem with the use of fireworks on that day, which makes it different from bonfire night, is that on 5 November, most fireworks are let off between 6 pm and 8 pm; those on new year's eve are let off at midnight. It is likely that people who let fireworks off on bonfire night will be sober, but on new year's eve, they are likely to be intoxicated. If I had a simple answer, I would give it, but I ask the Minister to take that point into consideration in the consultation paper. I hope that he finds a means of tackling the problem and reducing the likelihood of accidents.
10.3 am
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on introducing the debate so meticulously. He has been through the detail, and I shall not bore the House by repeating his sensible suggestions. I shall merely reinforce his points and hope that the Minister comes back quickly and strongly on everything that he said.
I must declare an interest as the Member for Huddersfield. Not in my constituency, but nearby in Colne Valley is Standard Fireworks, the largest producer of fireworks left in Britain. It is an excellent company that employees several hundred people and is renowned in the House and outside for its interest in safety and its good-quality fireworks. I congratulate the company, the last of the big fireworks companies in Britain, on maintaining high standards of production and of regulation of its activities and on its tremendous work in putting its own money into safety and in trying to ensure that people can enjoy a traditional holiday. One does not need a day off to have a holiday. Bonfire night is a holiday tradition that goes back to 1605. I do not know when fireworks were first let off, but it was long ago. It is deep in our tradition.
I resent the killjoy tendency in Britain whereby when there is a crisis or accident, there is an emotional spasm that says that everything must stop. I share the deep feeling of sympathy of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield for the people who died recently as a result of fireworks, and for their families. I feel strongly about the way in which their deaths were caused. However, we have to balance that with the fact that fireworks are a traditional way of celebrating 5 November, Guy Fawkes' day or plot night, as we call it in the north. I do not think that it should be stopped. Fireworks can be safe if they are good fireworks, properly regulated and let off sensibly.
There are, of course, dangers. If people who are not adult or experienced enough let off fireworks, there can be tragic consequences. But they can be overcome. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) mentioned the honesty of the chairman and managing director of Standard Fireworks about his bangers. He has been equally frank with me. It is a part of his market, but I am sure that he shares my view that if there were no banger market, Standard could cope with it. Most of us know that the real enjoyment of 5 November and of fireworks is the colour and beauty of a firework display. My view is heartfelt because I have an interest and because I know that there is a tradition that is precious to many millions of people. I want that to continue.
I am going to say some hard political words. The Conservative party is the great party of deregulation. Since I have been in the House, it has shouted it from the rooftops. The high priests of deregulation, whether Front Bench or Back Bench, cannot wait to tell us that the state should not get involved in anything. They want total deregulation. Let the buyer beware, let people buy anything they like and let off anything they like. Fireworks are a classic example of what happens when that ruthless attitude to deregulation comes home.
The Minister will not like me saying that two people died this firework weekend because of deregulation. They died partly because of the deregulatory attitude of the Government, who have weakened controls against the
900
best advice of the industry in Britain and of senior staff at Standard Fireworks. They said that we should not deregulate and that if we did, we would get all sorts of dangerous rubbish from China and elsewhere and accidents would occur. That was self-interested, because if accidents happen, people say that fireworks should not be let off at all and that we should end fireworks. I have been involved in the matter for some years. I have heard the industry and my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield say that deregulation will spoil it for everyone. Yes, it will; deregulation has spoilt the lives of families whose loved ones have either died or been dreadfully injured by fireworks that have come in from abroad.
The incident was not isolated. I went to my village and someone in a shop showed me a firework costing £60, which was about the size of a birthday cake. It was not for a special occasion or display, but for anyone to buy. Trading standards officers do not have the power, effectiveness or will that they used to have. A parallel can be drawn with the sale of alcohol: a survey of who could buy alcohol in my area was conducted in recent weeks. The police sent a nice letter to all off-licences asking them to stop selling alcohol to young people. The police said that it should be done the easy way, and that there was no need to be heavy—the young purchasers should be identified and the sales stopped. But the campaign did not seem to be effective.
The police sent 14-year-old boys into off-licences: 20 out of 31 served those boys with alcohol—in two cases, they were served by a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old. As I went round my area before 5 November, I found that precisely the same happens with fireworks: very young children get hold of them and the deregulatory climate seems to be responsible.
The situation is bad enough, with deregulation and the people who have been injured or killed as a result. But, worse, two years ago there was a death in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—he will speak in more detail about that. The coroner spoke directly to the Minister involved and said that such evil fireworks should not be brought in. For two years, the Government have done nothing about those fireworks, which have come into this country and killed people.
I have spoken strongly about the subject. I do not want to be a killjoy; I want our lovely festival to continue; I want proper curbs. I have no special mandate for bangers, which are misused, and I have no special case to make for the extension of the time for using fireworks. The traditional period in our country is quite short—about three weeks—and I see nothing wrong with that period being strictly enforced in terms of the sale of fireworks, apart from their use in displays.
Some of us who were holding meetings in the House of Commons on 5 November almost thought that we were under attack. I had booked a Room overlooking the river, and there was a fantastic firework display on the launch just outside the House of Lords. It was a magnificent, safe and enjoyable event, which showed how fireworks can be used.
If the Government continue their deregulatory, care-for-no-one attitude, more people will die. If the Minister does not take action before next year, other people will die. But by then there will be a Labour Government who will ensure that firework displays are safe.
10.14 am
Mr. Bill Michie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue.
I want to start my speech where my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) left off. We are not here as killjoys to try to stop people enjoying themselves or to try to stop various organisations and religious bodies celebrating holy days—that is nonsense. The Firework Safety Bill and the debate are about the effect that fireworks can have on ordinary citizens who have no argument with people enjoying themselves, but are merely asking for some consideration. Animal owners also need consideration, but I shall come to that subject later. This is a debate not about how to stop people enjoying themselves, but about how we can find a way of ensuring that people can still celebrate while protecting those who are greatly affected by fireworks.
No one doubts the fact that fireworks give pleasure. I thoroughly enjoy attending the displays at my local park. It is worth congratulating local authorities and other organisations that put on tremendous displays, in safety, and that often educate children on the dangers of fireworks, how to place them safely and how to stand away. People should be congratulated on holding firework displays and educating others.
Safety is a priority, particularly for organised bonfires. As my hon. Friends have already said, how can it be safe for someone to let off a £20 or £60 shell in their back garden if he is meant to stand 25 yd away from the firework? Many back gardens are not 25 yd long, so people would have to stay in the house—the firework would no doubt blow all the windows out. One firework, which must have misfired, came over my fence and exploded above the lawn. I was amazed that none of my windows were blown in. All the fire alarms, burglar alarms and car alarms went crazy. Who knows what would have happened if anyone had been within a couple of yards of that firework—admittedly, it misfired. Some fireworks have a shell casing, which is almost like shrapnel when they explode. We need to regulate such fireworks, some of which are powerful.
Most people enjoy the visual aspect of firework displays, which are fine if they are beautiful spectacles with a few crackles, but I see nothing visually beautiful about one big thud that frightens half the population to death and is then over. There is a difference between the two types of firework displays. I have doubts about how we can regulate the use of most fireworks. By banning bangers, we have gone a long way to answer most of the complaints raised in our surgeries.
I received a typical letter from an old lady in my constituency. She wrote:
"Dear Mr. Michie,
I sit in my home this evening, and feel as if I have been living in a war torn area for well over a month now".
She goes on to describe the loud explosions and the difficulties that she faces. She mentions the advice given by Rolf Harris on his programme when he told people to ensure that they kept their animals in on bonfire night as it was likely to be distressing for them. Keeping a dog or a cat inside for one or two nights is one thing, but how can someone keep a pet in for about two months, which seems to be the period in Sheffield?
902
At the end of her letter, the old lady makes a plea. She asks:
"Yes, people have rights and some things are difficult to enforce, but could you please help us, speak up for us, the fed up majority, and quieten the minority that disturb the peace over a sickeningly long period of time?"
The letter finishes, "Help". I know that, like that old lady, some live in blocks with other old people, and I have talked to them. They are terrified at the sheer noise, which affects them psychologically.
I do not know whether we can restrict the time for selling. As my constituent said, that may be difficult because we have to consider religious groups that celebrate at different times of the year. It may be difficult to restrict the time during which fireworks can be usedk—it might be a good idea if they are not used after midnightk—but it would not be too difficult to control the sale of fireworks. That would not stop people hoarding them and setting them off at the wrong time, but it would stop what is happening in a shop not far from where I live. It is open many hours a day, including Sundays, and sells nothing but fireworks for months on end. It encourages people to make impulse buys. If a child walks past the shop and realises that he has enough spending money to buy some fireworks, he will go in and purchase them. Restricting the times and dates on which fireworks can be sold may help to ease the problem.
As I said earlier, taking bangers out of the equation is certainly the most effective way of helping the majority of people. Old people and animals live in fear. Unfortunately, I no longer have a dogk—mine died of old age many years ago. It was a sheep dog of a nervous disposition, to say the least, and for bonfire night and perhaps the night after, I used to get a tranquilliser for him from the vet. It did not actually knock him out but, for some unknown reason, he used to walk about as though he had gone deaf, so it obviously worked. The problem is, however, that it is not possible to keep giving animals tranquillisers for two months or more, just because some great firework might go off. There are therefore limits to what animal lovers can do to protect their animals, just as there are limits to what old people can do to protect their nerves.
The onus remains on the House to find some way of restricting bangers or, hopefully, banning them altogether. We must take action on behalf of those who do not want to kill the joys and pleasures of others, but who want only a little peace and quiet. That way all of us, not just a minority, can have a happy life.
10.20 am
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns relating to the circumstances surrounding the death in November 1994 of my constituent, Mr. Roger Robinson. His case has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
In November 1994, Mr. Robinson organised a display for elderly people at a care home in my constituency. He was killed as the result of the explosion of an

903
aerial shell, which was exactly of the sort described by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. The inquest report indicates that
"The firework involved was 4 inch in diameter and is launched out of a mortar tube."
The evidence given at the inquest stated that
"the shell had a weight of almost 15 ounces, was intended to reach a height of 800 feet before ejecting its pyrotechnic effects, and would have been travelling at a speed of 225 mph when it came out of the top of the tube"—
and hit my constituent in the face.
The Minister is aware that I have been in correspondence with him, his Department and his predecessor about the circumstances of Mr. Robinson's death. I was especially concerned to learn from the Minister's predecessor—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—who wrote to me on 11 August 1995, that import controls on fireworks exercised by the Health and Safety Executive had been abolished from 1 December 1993.
The Minister is well aware of the implications of that Government decision, which was presumably taken as part of the deregulation exercise mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. The Minister will also be aware that there have been extensive representations from trading standards officers in various parts of the country, not least in West Yorkshire. Here, I commend the West Yorkshire trading standards officers; we are fortunate in our area to have some of the most effective and articulate officers in the country. They wrote to the Government stating that those aerial shells were unsuitable for the public and should be banned from public sale.
The Minister will be aware that the inquest into the death of Mr. Robinson was resumed on 30 November 1995. The coroner for my area is my namesake, Mr. David Hinchliff. At the end of the inquest, he made a specific statement, which I shall quote briefly. He stated to the court that
"pursuant to Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules,"
he intended
"to draw the attention of this fatality to the appropriate authorities, which in this case will be the Department of Trade and Industry."
Mr. Hinchliff added that he was acting
"in the hope that a fatality or fatalities of this nature can in the future be avoided, that is the very least that I feel that I can do in this situation".
I have a copy of the detailed letter that he subsequently sent to the Minister on 3 January 1996. The letter makes his feelings clear. It states:
"My recommendation must therefore be that Aerial Shells of all sizes should not be available to the general public, and that they should be sold only to people who have undergone appropriate theoretical and practical training."
I have a copy of the Minister's acknowledgment of that letter.
I know the Minister reasonably well and have always found him to be a decent and honourable man who is competent in his work. He always receives me well when we meet. However, I have to ask what has been going on—Mr. Robinson's death occurred in 1994 and the circumstances have been reported to his Department on
904
more than one occasion. Needless deaths have occurred that might have been avoided. I do not want to make a political point—the issue is too serious for that—but deregulation appears to have overtaken common sense and the sad consequences are there for all to see.
I want to repeat the point made by other hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. I know of Standard Fireworks and I and my family have used its products over many years. It is a company of repute and I want to endorse the comments made by hon. Members to the effect that the industry wants not deregulation, but more regulation. Yesterday, I met Mr. John Woodhead of Standard Fireworks, who spoke in detail of his concerns about the implications for the industry of the sort of incident that I have described. Clearly, such incidents are not in the industry's interests and Mr. Woodhead wants more regulation, especially import controls—precisely the opposite of the Government's action in 1993. He wants there to be training along the lines described by several hon. Members this morning. Judging by our conversation, I am fairly certain that Mr. Woodhead would have no objection to bangers being banned altogether.
I have received representations from constituents similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). People have had their lives made a misery in the period around bonfire night and they ask me why we have to have bangers. Would not having bangers really cause great difficulties? Would it really impact on the joy of bonfire night?
I am not a killjoy—in my childhood, bonfire night was one of the highlights of the year. In my area, we started preparing in August—chumping, we called it, which meant getting the wood in for the bonfire. It was a great event and I want that to continue. I do not see why we need to suffer the nuisance arising from bangers. I vividly remember the consequences for the guide dog belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). As the direct result of being frightened by a firework, the dog was run over and had to stop working for my hon. Friend, who had to get another guide dog.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Comparing notes with the hon. Gentleman on our respective childhoods, I always found the bonfire more fun than the fireworks. I should like to thank him for his kind personal remarks about me and engage him not on the subject of guide dogs but on an earlier point. He referred twice to the fact that the import licensing regime was overturned in 1993. For the record, I want to make it clear that that regime was, in fact, replaced in 1993. The Health and Safety Executive will say that the single authorisation scheme that was put in place of the import licensing regime in no way weakens safety controls. One regime was replaced by another, not simply removed.
Mr. Hinchliffe: All I would say to the Minister is that I examined the issue in some detail and discussed it with representatives of the industry, whose impression is that the import controls weakened the safety aspect in this country.
Mr. Burden: The Minister is wrong—import licences were removed. The Health and Safety Executive provides

905
authorisation and classification on applications to bring fireworks into the country. There is no regular check at the port of entry and no way of telling whether the fireworks entering the country are the same as those for which authorisation was requested. There was no replacement—import controls have gone and they need to be brought back.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That reflects my understanding of the industry's impression of the current position.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. Without making party points, I hope that we can learn from the deaths that have occurred and that action will be taken. The action that we should take is clearly set out in the coroner's letter in respect of my constituent's unfortunate death.
10.29 am
Mr. John Heppell: I shall speak briefly because I missed the start of the debate. I apologise for that; I had to attend a meeting.
Today's debate is predominantly about import controls and about category 3 and category 4 fireworks, but I am worried about very small fireworks—those in category 2, possibly even category 1. I have been involved in previous firework campaigns, but I became involved in this year's campaign after being visited by a woman whose dog had been killed in a firework-related incident. I promised that I would support her in getting a petition together. Within days, a young man had died in my constituency because of a firework—apparently, not a big firework.
I urge the Minister to extend the scope of his review to smaller fireworks. Import controls would not have helped to save Dale Mitchell's life. I want something that would have done so—an increase in the age at which people can buy fireworks to 18. I want a licensing system. I want proper training in all categories of fireworks.
I shall present that petition to the Minister, probably at the end of this month—i hope before he announces the results of his review. He expressed his sympathy following Dale's death. I thank him for that, and hope that he will consider the petitioners' views.
10.31 am
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This has been a debate of high calibre, probably because the only contributors have been Opposition Members of Parliament. The debate is the culmination of a campaign by Labour in Parliament, which has sought for five years to restore controls on dangerous fireworks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been at the forefront of that campaign, but others have supported him for many years—my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies).
It is important to examine the Government's record in action. Indeed, if it had only been in action, we might not be talking about the deaths today. From the questions that I tabled in 1989 to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to my private Member's
906
Bill to restrict the sale of dangerous fireworks in 1994, and in Labour's calls in November 1995 and June 1996 for the banning of aerial shell fireworks, we have been outspoken in the cause of firework safety. In contrast, today, not one Conservative Back Bencher has been present to listen to us or the Minister, let alone to speak.
It was a Labour Government who, in 1975, secured strict controls on the type and power of fireworks, limited who had access to them and imposed a code of practice to regulate firework safety. Labour slashed the power of bangers and ensured that unpredictable jumping fireworks were abolished; both had high accident rates. As a result, for more than a decade, injuries plummeted to an historic low. For years, far fewer people suffered firework injuries and no one lost their life.
All that was changed when the new Tory right took over and decided to deregulate fireworks legislation. It destroyed the essential protection enjoyed by the public. The Tory ideologues covered three areas of public safety—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health, and health and safety. They are guilty of scrapping legislation that was the culmination of 100 years of firework safety controls.
In 1988, the Tory ideologues weakened the system of importation controls. Until that time, from 1875, the importation of fireworks was controlled by the Explosives Act 1875 Order in Council 10A. In 1988, Conservative Ministers repealed the tough mandatory checks on each type of imported firework by the Health and Safety Executive and replaced them with another system—self verification. Fortunately, importers still had to comply with strict safety rules.
In 1991, firework injuries had been cut to 723—too many, but far fewer than in countries with lax controls. The reduction in injuries did not last long. When at the DTI, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) all ignored warnings from the industry and from safety experts.
In 1992, the chief inspector of explosives, Mr. G. Williamson, wrote to inform the DTI that some suppliers were selling category 4 fireworks to the general public. In a prophetic sentence, he warned:
"The chance of a major incident clearly increases"—
but the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), did nothing.
In 1991, the United Kingdom firework industry lobbied the DTI for mandatory legal sanctions on the sale of dangerous fireworks. On 21 August 1990, in a letter to the DTI, our leading company, Standard Brock, said:
"There is such a huge performance gap in the present Category 3 range as to confuse the public entirely and to put proper safety in jeopardy … I would move"
aerial shells
"into Category 4".
Still nothing was done.
The Minister will doubtless tell us that he has a consultation exercise in hand. Sadly, it will be the third consultation exercise that the Government have launched in the 1990s, as they have sought to push responsibility for firework safety on to Europe, the enforcement agencies, the fire service, the police and the trading standards service—everyone but themselves.

907
The Government conducted a consultation exercise in June 1993, and another in December 1994. They received a robust response from the Association of Chief Police Officers which, on 27 January 1995, wrote to the DTI, saying:
"Under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations it is necessary to prove only the offer to supply or the agreement to supply fireworks whereas the Explosive Act 1875 requires proof of the sale which can on occasion be more difficult to prove.
Both"
police
"forces feel that it is inappropriate to repeal this legislation and would seek to retain it".
In spite of that advice—that the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations were performing a valuable service protecting the public—Ministers went ahead and abolished them. The assurances that the Minister gave us earlier—that that made no difference and that safety was still in hand—are patently untrue.
In our previous debate on fireworks, also secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the time, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), when questioned about the impact of imported fireworks, said:
"We have looked at whether imported fireworks have any role to play in terms of the increase in figures. We have no evidence of that at all."—[Official Report, I November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 272.]
Is it not tragic that the evidence was to come exactly a year later because that Minister failed to take action?
In the mean time, on 3 January 1996, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, the coroner who looked into the death of his constituent Roger Robinson sent a damning letter to the Minister, communicating his findings. He said:
"From the evidence recorded at this Inquest it became apparent that legislative controls are required for the sale of Aerial Shells … The likelihood of an accident involving a shell resulting in fatal injuries is unusually high."
The Minister present in the Chamber today, who acknowledged the letter, did absolutely nothing about it. When pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on 17 July this year on the Floor of the House of Commons to impose a ban on aerial shell sales to the public, he again declined to take any action. It was of course only a few months later that two people were killed by that very type of shell.
The warnings to the Government have been legion. In 1994, the chairman of the National Fire Safety Technical Committee stated:
"It would seem that if the current proposals go ahead, consumer safeguards will be lowered in an area where dangers are very well known and understood".
I asked for a meeting on 3 November 1994 with the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to discuss the import and sale of category 4 fireworks following the removal of licences. The relevant Minister replied:
"We have been assured by the Health and Safety Executive that this should not have any real effect on the safety of imported fireworks … I do not think that there would be much to be gained from a meeting."
908
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities begged Ministers for a meeting with its officials in October 1995. It took six months for DTI officials to meet representatives of the association and key enforcement officers.
The sad fact is that neither we nor the general public have any grounds for believing a word that Ministers say on this subject. We know that they are lying through their teeth on tax; they are also lying through their teeth on the control of fireworks—the deaths and horrific injuries clearly show that.
The abolition of import controls has been a deregulation disaster. My colleagues have clearly spelled out what now needs to be done. First, we must ensure that those who sell fireworks over the counter are held responsible for their actions—if over-the-counter sales are to continue. There must be some doubt about that. If the injuries continue at the current horrific rate and the public have to put up with the tremendous strain of bangers and other fireworks being let off in unrecorded public incidents, the future of such sales must be in doubt.
Furthermore, we must ensure that those responsible for firework displays are properly trained and licensed, and that dangerous fireworks such as aerial shells are not available to members of the public but are restricted solely to those who run professional firework displays.
On 16 October last year, the DTI issued a press notice to the public. It read:
"Jonathan Evans warns: the best don't mess with fireworks".
The truth is that the best do not mess with firework regulations, which is precisely what the Government have done. The best do not sit on the Government Benches. The Opposition, on the other hand, intend to ensure that the British public get the best, safest firework legislation available anywhere.
10.43 am
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing this debate on an important subject. We are all aware that today's debate takes place in the aftermath of tragic deaths from fireworks this year. I know that the whole House is of the same mind in expressing condolences to the family and friends of young Dale Mitchell, Mr. David Hattersley and Mr. Steve Timcke. That serves to underline the serious issues that the Government have to consider.
As has been pointed out, there have been three deaths from aerial shells since 1994. Investigations are still continuing into the deaths of Mr. David Hattersley and Mr. Steve Timcke, and details are still emerging. It appears, however, that a significant factor in the two deaths was human error. Hon. Members will also recall the death in similar circumstances of Mr. Roger Robinson of Wakefield in 1994. In that case, no fault was found with the firework which killed him. I recognise and accept that this raises serious questions about the availability to the public of such powerful devices.
Nine-year-old Dale Mitchell died as a result of a fire started by a firework being put through the letterbox of the family home. I understand that the incident is subject to court proceedings. I have asked my officials to liaise closely with the authorities investigating the very different circumstances of each case so that we can learn the lessons from them.

909
The hon. Member for Northfield will be well aware that many of the matters he raised are already being considered as part of the Department's review of fireworks, and that I am giving these issues the serious attention that they deserve. As far as I am concerned, one person injured on bonfire night is too many. The answers that I have already given the House should leave the hon. Gentleman in no doubt that we intend to do what is sensible and appropriate. My priority is to arrive at a balanced judgment of what measures would be appropriate.
I hope that the House will bear with me when I say that fireworks give rise to a wide range of worries. I refer to hooligan behaviour, the purchase and use of fireworks by children, anti-social use late at night or over an extended period—all these have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) mentioned the link with alcohol, and I agreed with him about that. Then there is the question of training for the organisers of displays; carelessness on the part of non-professional users; the availability of certain shells which may be dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced; and badly made fireworks or those containing illegal mixtures. I should point out that import controls are relevant only to the last of those issues. All the evidence shows that badly made fireworks are a far smaller issue than most of the others I have mentioned.
Against this background, it can be seen that there is no quick fix, but I will instigate a thoroughgoing root-and-branch review of the regulations—I give the House that commitment.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister appears to be committing himself to a further review. Why, then, after he received the letter from David Hinchliff, the West Yorkshire coroner, dated January of this year and specifically calling on the Minister to re-classify all aerial shells as category 4 so that they cannot be sold. to the general public—because the deceased in question was an "adult mature sensible person" who died as a result of human error—did the Minister not accept that advice and act on it in January, before bonfire night, thereby perhaps avoiding the subsequent two fatalities?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the letter that the coroner wrote to me and, I think, of my reply. The coroner's letter was a contributory factor in launching the review. The basis and framework of the review were laid down earlier this year, and it went public in July.
There are no quick fixes. Simply shuffling one kind of firework from category 3 into category 4 will not overcome all the problems that we face. I am not in the business of quick fixes; I want to be thorough. There have been changes in the market, with which I shall deal shortly.
At risk of saying it twice or three times, I do not intend to rush into knee-jerk measures that might be effective for a short period and attract congratulatory headlines, but encourage an uncontrolled black market in fireworks in the longer term, as has been the case in some countries that have strict legal controls.
Mr. Burden: I know that the Minister is short of time, so I will not detain him long. No one is asking for a quick fix, or saying that he should not carry out a review,
910
but after three deaths in a three-year period, what more evidence does he need to ban aerial shells from public sale for a temporary period under the powers available to him, while a thorough review is carried out? Let us get them off the market and make sure that people are safe. The Minister can have his review and, if it is proved that such fireworks are safe, let him bring them back, but for goodness sake let us not have any more deaths in the meantime.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman returns to the point that he made when he opened the debate. I will reflect on it, but I shall not oblige him here and now in the Chamber. I want to press on, as I have only nine minutes left to reply on behalf of the Government to what I consider to be one of the most important Adjournment debates for a long time. I hope that the House will allow me the opportunity to reply.
Let me assure the House that the Government take the matter very seriously indeed, as I have made clear by undertaking the comprehensive review, which 1 will see through. My reasons for instigating it are well documented—and shared by a number of hon. Members. The review was initiated earlier this year, well before 5 November. The reasons behind it are manifold: growing concern about the great variety and power of fireworks available to the general public; the increasing number of fireworks sold and the way in which they are used; the changed structure of the market in fireworks; the nuisance that they can cause to people, especially the elderly and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) rightly said, to animals; and the elevated level of injuries over the past two years.
The consultation document issued by my Department was, I believe, the most detailed explanation of the controls on fireworks and the most comprehensive attempt to seek views on a range of important firework issues since the review undertaken in 1975, to which the hon. Member for Northfield referred. The 1975 review resulted in the endorsement of a set of voluntary controls instituted by the firework industry. I took the view, shared by others, including many in the firework industry, that the time was past when those measures could be considered sufficient to offer adequate safeguards to the public.
A number of issues were raised today. Much has been made of the removal of import controls. I shall deal with that once and for all, before turning to other matters. The change to the authorisation system was not rampant deregulation, as the Opposition claim, but a sensible bid to establish a more thorough and equitable system that applied to both domestic and imported explosives.
In 1993, the combined effect of changes to border controls arising from the completion of the single European market, and the need to implement the explosives for civil uses directive, necessitated some change in the existing system. That directive did not apply to fireworks. However, the Health and Safety Commission took the view that a uniform system covering all explosives, including fireworks, from all origins, both member states and third countries, would have safety benefits. The implementing regulations were therefore used as a legislative vehicle to strengthen and clarify existing authorisation procedures and remove import controls.
The current authorisation regime has certain advantages over import licensing controls. At the time of its removal in 1993, import licensing did not require checks on every

911
consignment brought into the country or routine testing, as hon. Members seem to believe. From 1987, licences were issued for up to five years and spot checks were made, as they are now, under the authorisation system. An import licence was issued for any firework that fell into the appropriate United Nations classification, which was very broad. The new system uses specific names which provide more precise information to enforcement bodies.
The import licensing scheme required only that a firework complied with British standard BS 7114 before final distribution. Accordingly, fireworks could be imported in a state that did not comply. There was no distinction between fireworks intended for the public and those for professional use. The import licensing scheme did not specifically prohibit dangerous admixture, which authorisation does.
A major advantage of the authorisation system is that compliance can be checked at any time, rather than solely at the time of entry.
Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister saying that the Government did not deregulate, and that if anyone is responsible, it is not the Government but the Health and Safety Executive? Is he saying that the flood of cheap and dangerous fireworks from China that are sold with no instructions in English are nothing to do with the Minister? If so, ministerial responsibility is dead and I, for one, mourn its passing.
Mr. Taylor: That is a rather intemperate way of putting a question that is well worth answering. The issue of imported explosives is not, so to speak, black and white. The Chinese—I say this with the greatest caution—probably have more experience with fireworks than any other culture on the planet. The other factor that does not lend itself to a black and white interpretation is the fact
912
that some of the biggest importers of firework material from China are domestic manufacturers. The issue is therefore more complicated than the hon. Gentleman's question suggests.
There are two other aspects to be taken into account in considering what the hon. Gentleman might choose to call deregulation. The import licensing regime was replaced in 1993, but the Health and Safety Executive—1 associate myself with this—says that the single authorisation scheme, which is much more flexible, and which replaced it, in no way weakens safety controls.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It has.
Mr. Taylor: We differ about that.
Mr. Griffiths: Look at the figures.
Mr. Taylor: With two minutes to go, I am not sure how useful it is for the hon. Gentleman to intervene on me from a sedentary position. I have not yet finished dealing with the question about deregulation, as the Opposition choose to call it. I mentioned import licensing and its replacement. The second aspect is the revocation of the 1986 firework safety regulations, which took place in 1995 and has not weakened the hand of trading standards officers. Local authorities can authorise trading standards officers by simple resolution, and mark their warrant accordingly in these particular areas of activity. In those circumstances, trading standards officers can prosecute retailers.
The present authorisation system applies to imported and home manufactured fireworks alike. Suppliers will be in breach of the law unless each and every item that they supply fully meets the published criteria set by the Health and Safety Executive's explosives inspectorate.
I am beaten by the clock, but I would like to offer to all hon. Members present a letter that will cover any unanswered questions.

Social Services (Lancashire)
11 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On 22 November 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) was fortunate—in the same way as I have been this morning—in obtaining an Adjournment debate on the subject of social services in Lancashire, which was responded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who was then the Minister responsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North drew attention to the catalogue of incompetence and mismanagement of social services by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. My hon. Friend the Minister ensured that a report into the position in Lancashire, with particular regard to community care, was made by the social services inspectorate. That report contains some very serious criticisms. In particular, the summary of the report said:
"Management of the process gave cause for concern … Measures to contain spending and target resources have been unpopular and not always carried out smoothly or equitably across the county … The Council's home care policies give an initial preference to in-house services"
and so on.
Those criticisms were brushed aside by the Labour councillor who chairs the social services committee of Lancashire county council, who bears the staggeringly inappropriate name of Councillor Humble. The one thing that none of us on the Conservative Benches has ever seen from Labour councillors in Lancashire is humility. They are completely unapologetic about all the many sins of commission and omission for which they have been responsible.
Yesterday, as a further sign of how much is wrong with the Labour party in Lancashire, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) drew attention during Prime Minister's Question Time to the recent revelations in the past few days about systematic fraud and corruption in Labour-controlled Preston council. None of this comes as a surprise to any of us on the Conservative Benches, and all those matters are connected. There is a seamless web of connections between the main Labour-controlled borough councils in Lancashire and the Labour group on the county council.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the people mentioned in the auditor's report to which I referred yesterday are members not only of Preston borough council but of Lancashire county council?
Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend says, in some cases they are the same people; in others, for example, there will be a husband on the county council and a wife on one of the borough council Labour groups, or other forms of "partners" that the Labour party so often go in for, with one partner on the county council and another on the borough council. The connections are closest between county hall in Preston and the Labour Lancashire county councillors who run personal empires from there, and Labour councillors on Preston borough council. There is much that is rotten in the state of Lancashire, and all that is rotten is Labour.
914
I now come to the specific effects that this has on the people who are unlucky enough to have to rely on the appalling Labour-controlled county council for care when they need it. What are the details of the huge amounts that Lancashire county council has been provided with—out of taxpayers' money—by the Government to spend on social services? In 1990–91, Lancashire county council had £92 million. By 1993–94, this had risen to £147 million. In 1994–95, it was £169 million—up £22.6 million in one year—and by 1995–96, it was £185 million.
How has Labour-controlled Lancashire county council organised its affairs given those huge amounts? In 1993–94, the county council underspent by £6.3 million. The Conservative group on the county council wisely recommended that that be carried forward. Instead, Labour put it into its general balance for other use—or, more likely, misuse. In 1994–95, the county council found that it had miscalculated so badly that it faced a possible overspend of £14 million. Its response was to withdraw home help services.
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend should be congratulated on mentioning that point. He will be aware that many of the elderly and others in my constituency have suffered from those cuts. He mentioned the cut in the social services budget of £6 million in 1993–94. Perhaps he will go on to deal with the figures, but I invite him to comment at this stage on the fact that it was also cut by £3 million in 1995–96. I understand that there is a large underspend this year. I find those cuts quite unacceptable and I should be grateful for his comments. Does he agree that the only explicable reason why the county has done this is to build up a war chest for next year's council elections?
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One is bound to be suspicious, in the light of history, of precisely why those sudden cuts were made, and it is our constituents who are suffering. There is undoubtedly political gerrymandering going on with the budgets. I know that my right hon. Friend's constituents have suffered badly. Independent evidence shows that damage has been done in many parts of Lancashire—a point that I shall come to later.
We have covered all of this in the House before, but more scandals continue to crop up. There was the scandalous overspend by Lancashire county council on a new social services home in Bold street, Blackburn. It spent so much on that—about £240,000 to £260,000 for a small number of residents, at a cost of about £26,000 per resident, while there was a vast increase in the budget for social workers—that it became a byword for the incompetence of the social services committee, which refused to use the vastly cheaper but much better provisions in large private sector care homes in Lancashire. Many of the people who provide private care home facilities are members of the excellent Lancashire Care Homes Association, which has done its best to present their case for greater use of their facilities.
The scandal of the hugely expensive home in Bold street, Blackburn came to light because of the diligence of a Conservative councillor in Blackpool, John Woolley, who was presented at a different committee with a large—in his view excessive—claim by a Lancashire county council social worker for a big increase in travel

915
allowances. Councillor Woolley rightly kept digging until he uncovered the whole story. So often, at Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, it is a case of jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls.
The debate grows mostly out of the latest scandal from which some of my constituents have suffered personally. Mr. and Mrs. Gardner of Knaresborough avenue, Blackpool have a son, David, now aged seven. David, sadly, suffers from cerebral palsy and needs a lot of extra care. The Gardners have had a lot of help from charities, especially Scope and the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. Unfortunately, they have been among the many families who have been badly let down by Lancashire county council social services. The biggest problem has been a lack of continuity of care for David. As the Gardners have said to me in their many visits to my surgeries over the past year or more as the case has developed, every time there is a change of social worker, the plans for what the social services department offers to provide seem to change.
The only part of Lancashire county council that seems to work properly and has helped the Gardners is the welfare rights service. I give credit, on behalf of the Gardners and other constituents, to the genuine help that Alun Pugh, Jim Dickson and their team have given, for which they were rightly recently awarded the Government's charter mark.
The Gardners, however, have not been so fortunate with the social services at Lancashire county council. Despite their general practitioner, Dr. Morrison, writing a strongly worded letter to social services at the end of 1995 urging continuity in the care facilities provided for David, the plans have continued to change. There were all sorts of problems with David's speech therapy service, but the most important feature of the case was the proposed changes to the service provided for David at his home.
Frustrated with this long saga, I decided to take up the matter with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, which was involved in providing much of David's at-home care. The council wanted to withdraw that care and I thought it was important, not only for the Gardners but for so many of those whom we represent in Lancashire, to seek an independent, unimpeachable view from a charitable source about the case and about the general picture of Lancashire county council social services provision.
I was delighted to receive an extremely detailed letter on the subject, from Martin Perona-Wright, director of services in Lancashire for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. He said:
"All the staff, Manager. supervisors and care attendants who have been involved with the care of Mr. and Mrs. Gardner's son David, share the considerable concern about the future. Continuity of care and choice by the client appear to be of secondary importance to financial considerations. We operate in Lancashire against the competitive backcloth of a policy which refers every client in the first instance, to their own Home Care service".
That is the county council's service. Conservative Members constantly make that precise point and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North referred to it in his Adjournment debate in late 1995. The letter continues:
"The Local Authority service—which is not subject to the same rigorous annual Inspection, which the LCF Care at Home Services in Lancaster and Blackpool have recently undergone—can therefore
916
cherry pick the services and clients to whom they wish to provide a service. Charities such as this suffer from lack of continuity—plenty of early morning, evening and weekend work"—
in parenthesis, I point out that those are the times when it does not suit social workers to work—
"but little cost effective continuous Monday to Friday care. Small wonder we are deemed to be expensive!"
On the specific case, Mr. Perona-Wright goes on to say, on behalf of the charity:
"If left to this organisation and it were the wish of the Gardners, we would be willing to continue David's care and support, despite the fact we provide a quality of input and care in excess of that purchased by the Local Authority. (What about the principle of direct payment and/or topping up for domiciliary home care services—has either of these practicalities been discussed with the Gardners? The answer is in the negative because neither feature has been adopted by Lancashire County Council Social Services Department!). We have only today"—
the letter is dated 22 October—
"been verbally"—
I stress, not even in writing—
"informed that our services are no longer required from the 2nd November and no reasons have been given for the change."
That major charity was given about 10 days' verbal notice that everything was about to change. Mr. Perona-Wright goes on:
"You might find the attached extracts from the booklet 'Community Care in Lancashire—Your Charter' useful. I have marked those statements which appear to be being breached in this case".
The social services department document, "Information about Community Care Services", contains all sorts of fine words. It states:
"If it is agreed that you will receive services to help you stay in your own home you can expect:
that the detail of the service and the arrangements for its provision will he discussed with you. Your preference is taken into account."
As Mr. Perona-Wright says, there was no question of preference in this case. The document goes on to say:
"that disruption in the established pattern of service will be kept to a minimum."
There is no question of social services sticking to that aim in this case. The document goes on:
"Community care aims to put service users and their carers first. In any dealings with community care services you can expect:
to have an opportunity to present your views in any assessment of your needs".
Mr. Harold Elletson: Does my hon. Friend agree that social services brochures and documents are unreliable? Does he recall the document that I produced in last year's social services debate which featured my constituent Geraldine Robinson on the cover? She suffers from cerebral palsy and was told that, as a result of Lancashire county council's mismanagement, her budget for domiciliary care would be cut from £700 to £300 per week and that her 24-hour care package would be reduced to only 34 hours of care per week. That is disgraceful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a short speech. Interventions, by their nature, should be short.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the way in which he continues to pursue—

917
as all Conservative Members seek to do—the manifold sins and wickednesses of Lancashire county council under Labour. It is extraordinary that both my constituent's case, which I am highlighting today, and the case raised by my hon. Friend involve cerebral palsy sufferers. The Labour group on Lancashire county council social services committee appears to have learned nothing from my hon. Friend's splendid debate, to which many hon. Members contributed, in November 1995.
Mr. Atkins: Conservative Members of Parliament from Lancashire are conscious of the importance of this case in raising the profile of the debate. Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members who represent Lancashire constituencies each week come across instances of the council's churlishness, incompetence, downright rudeness and its failure to care about people who need attention? That is a most damning indictment of Lancashire county council.
Mr. Hawkins: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. About half the cases presented at my surgery each week relate to complaints about Labour-controlled Lancashire county council social services. The real problem is the difference between the fine words in the pamphlets and the actions of the social workers on the ground—the two simply do not match. All the fine words in the world will achieve nothing if the actions do not deliver on the promises.
In Lancashire county council social services documents, one sees not only fine words but political propaganda. I have an official social services document that is supposed to be factual. The document about financial assessment entitled, "Guidelines for Completion of FIN 96", refers to cutting home help services almost overnight—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) mentioned earlier. In the third paragraph, it states:
"However, they"—
that is, the social services committee—
"were mindful of the Government under-funding of Community Care".
That assertion is not only inaccurate and disgraceful, but political propaganda presented in a supposedly official form about financial assessment. We must continue to highlight that sort of disgraceful behaviour.
I shall complete my quotations from the letter from Mr. Perona-Wright, the director of services in Lancashire for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. He concludes:
"I hope these comments will help you pursue the Gardners' case. One would like to see"—
as we all would—
"the interests of individuals—particularly those with disabilities—and their families being of paramount focus. Regrettably in this instance David's best interests appear not to be being served by an unnecessary and enforced change of carer agencies—a change to which no-one, apart from Social Services personnel, appears to subscribe. Please do not hesitate to come back to me if you feel I can be of any further help."
I immediately faxed that letter to social services, which picked up one or two minor details in its reply but failed to address the substance of the points raised.
However, there was good news this week for the Gardners, who applied for a review of their son's case. My Conservative colleague, John Woolley, the county and
918
Blackpool borough councillor, presented the Gardners' case at the hearing and he managed to win the review on their behalf on Monday. I pay tribute to his achievement. It was a case of the social services department maintaining its fixed opinion in opposition to the views of the charity that was involved in the child's care and against the interests of the family. The Gardners managed to retain that care only through the diligence of a Conservative councillor. That case is yet another object lesson in the practices of Lancashire county council.
Mr. Atkins: The council's reaction to an independent charity is not confined to social services. In education, the county council has refused to accept the existence of dyslexia, and has ignored the specialist, charitable and professional advice of Conservative Members' constituents about children with dyslexia.
Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about dyslexia, which relates closely to the David Gardner case, because one of his problems was with speech therapy. Under Labour, Lancashire county council constantly lets down the people whom it represents.
I was extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister when, shortly after he took up his new post, he sent us a copy of a letter, which he had sent to the deputy clerk of Lancashire county council, headed:
"Implementation of Community Care in Lancashire".
I pay tribute to the Minister for stressing that it was essential for Ministers to know what action the authority was taking to address the issues covered in a previous letter that had been sent during the summer. The Minister wrote:
"Those were serious concerns requiring a constructive response. I look forward to receiving a full account of your action plan".
It is essential that we keep up the pressure.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although Lancashire county council received the Minister's letter asking what it was going to do, there is little evidence that it is doing a great deal? Indeed, rather than doing anything, it is prevaricating and stretching matters out so that none of the recommendations is implemented.
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of today's debate was to keep up the pressure and to draw attention—as my right hon. and hon. Friends have done—to the fact that Lancashire county council seems to take no notice of evidence from charities, of what people who need care say and of what Ministers or the social services inspectorate say. We have had repeated reports from the social services inspectorate and the district auditor containing savage criticisms of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.
To emphasise the final lesson to be learnt, I shall use some of the words that were used by another party in the past. Under Labour, do not be old, do not be young and disabled, do not be any age and disabled and do not suffer from cerebral palsy, because all that the Labour party will do is publish fine words in expensive brochures, provide social workers with huge travel allowances and increase the budget for, and the number of, administrators at county hall. The one thing Labour will not do is provide

919
people with care. The country should know that Labour in Lancashire shows what it would be like if the country were ever unwise enough to elect a Labour Government. Do not be old, disabled or young and in need of care, because Labour will provide only glossy brochures and highly paid social workers, but no proper care when it is needed.
11.23 am
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to paint a different picture from that painted by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). Whatever the hon. Gentleman's fate may be, he will not be a Member of Parliament representing a Lancashire constituency after the general election. He has chosen the chicken run and has fled Blackpool before he loses his seat at the next general election.
It is a tragedy that every time Conservative Members initiate a debate about Lancashire, all that they do is to attack, criticise and paint an untrue and misleading picture. They know that I am a strong supporter of unitary local government. I would like Lancashire county council ultimately to go, and social services to be provided at borough council level. Having said that, I fully support the work of Lancashire county council. It does an extremely good job, and social services is one of the important services that it provides.
It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) chose to have a totally unjustified go at Preston borough council. Their allegations against Labour councils, including Burnley—their allegations went wider than Preston—were unjustified. I hope that they will repeat some of their remarks outside the House. Whatever the criticisms in the report that was published on Monday, the leader of Preston borough council, David Borrow, and his predecessor, Valerie Wise, are most anxious that any allegations against officers or members of the council are fully investigated, even if they concern activities which took place eight or nine years ago.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name and yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question about Preston borough council. If the hon. Gentleman has seen the independent auditor's report, he will know that the criticism was directed specifically at Preston borough council—I made no allegations against Burnley or anywhere else. Labour councillors and some officers were accused of, among other things, corrupt and criminal practices. I do not care when that was: Labour was in control whenever that took place, and it has cost Preston taxpayers millions of pounds.
Mr. Pike: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Conservative Members criticise Labour councils, but they do not make the same criticisms of Westminster council, which has been severely criticised for its actions. I do not condone any wrong actions by Preston borough council, but its present leader and his immediate predecessor have strongly condemned the actions that have been criticised. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South said that this case was typical of Labour authorities, and he made serious allegations. I accept that the right hon. Member for South
920
Ribble yesterday and in his intervention today referred specifically to Preston, so my comment about Burnley did not apply to him.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Ribble about the welfare rights services, which received a charter mark earlier this year. I pay tribute to Paul Burgess and his team throughout the county, and to Richard Roxburgh, an officer in Nelson, with whom I deal on many local issues. They provide an excellent service to the people of Lancashire.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has rightly taken a strong interest in the Gardner case. The individuals involved had a right of appeal. In the latter part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that that had been dealt with earlier this week. They exercised their right of appeal, and on that appeal panel were two Conservative and one independent councillor. Under Lancashire county council's system, people are entitled to have their case reviewed by an appeal panel if they are not satisfied with the way in which it has been dealt with. The criticism of the council in that case is unjustified.
Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pike: I want to be brief, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a short intervention.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman mentioned unitary authorities and Lancashire county council. Does he believe that elderly people, especially those in Burnley, would be better served if their social services were provided by his authority rather than by the county council?
Mr. Pike: I do not believe that. I think that services are better provided locally. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am strongly in favour of unitary local government, and that it is the Conservative Government who set up the local government review which made a mess of it. It proposed a hybrid solution—the worst possible solution for Lancashire—with Blackpool and Blackburn being taken out. That is a great tragedy. But let us not get side-tracked on to that debate: let us keep our minds on the important issue of social services. Social services and education are the two major services provided by the county council.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the social services inspectorate report which followed a previous debate. In a press release dated 20 June, Louise Ellman, leader of Lancashire county council, said:
"The Government commissioned this report after a so-called Parliamentary Debate in which no Labour MPs were allowed to speak. The report says that the justification or otherwise for the complaints concerning bias in residential care have not been substantiated."
As that press release suggests, the tone of the report was very different from that of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South.
In a later press release, Joan Humble, the chair of social services, said:
"The Social Services Committee maintains a continuing review of the arrangements for social care services in Lancashire taking account of recommendations made and the guidance provided by the Department of Health and the Audit Commission. This will continue and a clear focus will be kept on the needs of the most vulnerable people in Lancashire's community."
Mr. Hawkins: In her press release, which the hon. Gentleman read out, the Labour leader of Lancashire

921
county council, Mrs. Louise Ellman, referred to a "so-called parliamentary debate". What sort of approach is that from the leader of a Labour authority who has been chosen as a prospective parliamentary candidate for Labour, and who aspires to come to the House? We would remember that when the lady became a Labour Member of Parliament, were she to be successful.
Mr. Pike: I think that the phrase "so-called debate" is justified when it refers to a debate in which no one is allowed to express a different point of view. The simple fact is that no one was able to express a contrary view in that debate—so it was not a real debate, allowing both sides of the case to be heard.
Mr. Elletson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pike: No, I will not.
The social services inspectorate undertook an analysis of in-house services, which was published in June. It examined allegations made about community care in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South painted a misleading picture: the report certainly does not constitute the damning condemnation that Conservative Members have tried to portray. It showed that levels of overall service remained comparable with, or higher than, those in similar local authorities; that there was rapid growth in purchasing from the independent sector, at a level exceeding the average for other similar local authorities; that there was rapid expansion in the purchase of domiciliary services from the independent sector, from zero in 1993 to £11 million in 1995; that, in home care services, the growth of the independent sector had exceeded that of the in-house service; that the market share of independent nursing and residential homes in Lancashire had been consistently higher than the average for shire counties and England overall between 1993 and 1995; that, subject to the availability of resources. there was a wide range of choice and flexibility for users; and that the level of resources committed to management and administration was unexceptional compared with that in other counties.
According to the analysis,
"the report fails to substantiate allegations made that there is any systematic bias towards the use of in-house residential services but instead shows that the Government Direction on choice between public and private sector residential care has been complied with".
That view of the report is very different from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and other Conservative Members.
In-house services are clearly long established, and people still have confidence in them. I have visited a number of private homes: I undertook two tours during the summer recess. Some of them provided an equally good standard of care. I always say that the standard of a home cannot be judged by the carpets, curtains and wallpaper—not that those are unimportant, but I am sure that we all agree that the most important aspects of the care of elderly people are staffing and the attention given to those people. We must make the maximum use of the homes that we have; it would be absurd not to do so.
Let me say a little about charging policy. Lancashire county council has suffered severe financial restraint. Let us make no mistake: because of capping and other financial limitations, and the area cost adjustment—which
922
has caused it major problems—the council has not sufficient money to provide the services that it would like to provide. Finance and Government are responsible for the problems, and the form to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred was entirely justified in pointing that out.
The council was forced to make major cuts. One way of minimising those cuts was the introduction of a charging policy, which reduced the cuts by bringing in some money. The council tried to introduce the simplest and fairest possible system, and the level of charges is comparatively low.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): If Lancashire county council felt that it must make cuts because of a lack of financial resources, why did it underspend its social services budget by £1.94 million in 1993–94? Can the hon. Gentleman also explain to me, and to the people of Lancashire, why it underspent the budget by £3.4 million in 1995–96?
Mr. Pike: There have been so many changes in financing that it is difficult to adjust to those changes quickly.
Mr. Burns: What!
Mr. Pike: The Minister ought to be very careful. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred to a letter that he had received from the Minister, but the Minister chose to send that letter only to Conservative Members representing Lancashire seats. Why did he not send it to all Members of Parliament? He accused Lancashire county council of being political. I consider it very political of the Minister to choose to write—
Mr. Burns: Answer the question.
Mr. Pike: Let us deal with my point first. I am making my speech; the Minister will make his in due course. Was it not political of the Minister to act as he did? He should have written to all of us, to let us all see exactly what he is saying to Lancashire county council.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will be dealing with these matters, but, in fact, Lancashire county council has used the money that it did not spend, having carried it forward. It believes that it is on target to spend this year's budget; indeed, there is no doubt that that is so. But to criticise a marginal underspend—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] It is a very big budget, and the circumstances are extremely difficult when the position is changing all the time.
Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pike: No, I will not give way to the Minister again.
Mr. Burns rose—
Mr. Pike: Go on, then.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he is floundering, and I do not want to

923
cause him undue embarrassment, but will he be kind enough to explain why there was an underspend in those two years if resources were so tight?
Mr. Pike: The underspend was 1.78 per cent. I accept that no one wants an underspend—
Mr. Burns: Why was there one, then?
Mr. Pike: There are many reasons. The social services position is changing all the time.
Mr. Burns: No.
Mr. Pike: What the Minister says is entirely unjustified. In the previous year, there was a £230,000 overspend. Is the Minister saying that that was wrong? Is he saying that the spending of every Government Department is exactly on target each year? We have been looking at the Chancellor's figures for this year. There has been great variation in the public sector borrowing requirement, for instance.
Mr. Elletson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pike: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman was not even present at the beginning of the debate—he came in late—and other hon. Members want to speak.
The charges are low compared with those of many other local authorities, with 56 per cent. of service users paying only the minimum rate of £1.55 per week. If the county council had not introduced charges, it would have had to make more cuts. The Minister may feel that the council has sufficient overall resources. That is not true. It needs more financial resources and a greater continuity of budget.
Year after year, the Government change the rules. Year after year, they cut further and cap the county council. Now is the time for the council to ensure that people can receive the services that they want. It will be able to do so when we have a Labour Government who at last recognise the importance of social services and of local government.
11.40 am
Mr. Den Dover: It gives me great pleasure to reinforce the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) because, in the 17 years that I have represented Chorley, Lancashire county council's social services department has been very uncaring. It has not controlled its budgets. It has not been efficient. In correspondence, it produces all sorts of warm words, but my constituents have been disappointed by its performance, particularly in the past couple of years.
It is unacceptable for the social services department suddenly to impose a respite home on the high-class residential area of Long Copse in Astley village in my constituency. No notice was given. There will be tremendous extra usage of resources, extra traffic and unacceptable noise and disturbance to residents in an area that is unsuitable for such a home. At the same time, I told county council officials that a disused building would have been admirable for the purpose and was within a
924
mile of the council's chosen site. There was a need to do something about the building and to provide—I do not want to stop respite care in the community—facilities where they are needed, not in a high-class residential area. That is typical of the bureaucratic and remote services operated by the county council.
Mention has been made of residential homes and of whether provision for people who need such a service should be made in-house by Lancashire county council or by the private sector. Much of the underspend this year and two years ago occurred because the council was reluctant to place spending in private sector hands.
In that connection, there is a dramatic increase in costs. In-house residential care costs an extra £93 per resident per week, more than in the private sector. That gives rise to a difference in cost of —10 million annually between the public and private sectors and it is one reason why we do not receive best value for money from the council. The standard home care service—domiciliary care—would cost £5 million more if provided in-house rather than by the private sector. That is about £15 million straight away. Compare that with the education spend and the policy statements issued by the Labour-controlled county council in the past few years, saying that there will be cuts in education spending and in the school budgets.
We have heard about the underspending. As in the past, the county council has raised a supplementary rate with no prior notice, which was damaging to individuals and businesses. As they did then, councillors have put the money from underspending into reserves so that, just before county council elections and the probable general election on 1 May, they can show what good, honest citizens they have been on behalf of county council residents and say, "We are going to reduce this and reduce that." I should like to think so. I think that the council will be pressing for that, but let us await events.
It is crazy that, as I said, the county council says, "We need cuts, cuts, cuts in education. We cannot give enough funds to schools," and then calls for an enormous rise of hundreds of millions in the education budget and of tens of millions for education spend in Lancashire.
Mr. Atkins: Did not the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer make it clear, as my hon. Friends will recall, that, if there were to be a Labour Government, there would be no extra funds for local government? Why therefore are Labour Members saying that more money should be spent when, if they were to form a Government, they would not be making such provision? It therefore depends on Conservatives and a Conservative administration in the county—if that is what happens—being more efficient.
Mr. Dover: I agree entirely, and it is yet another example of Labour saying one thing and doing another, or intending to do another.
If there is not enough money in the county council, why underspend on social services? Why not divert funds to education? Why the enormous brouhaha and cry for an area cost adjustment investigation, and what has that shown? Lancashire is overfunded compared with, say, Cheshire. If there were a change because of the academic and independent research, Cheshire would gain, Lancashire would lose and, guess what, we would be subjected to less education and school spending.

925
The county pressed for the investigation. Now that it has the independent results, it does not accept them or want any changes. It wants the whole thing scrubbed.
We shall see what happens. I hope and am optimistic that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put education at the top of the spend, as we have in the past with social services and community care. After all, Lancashire started off with the largest community care budget in Britain, and that has been frittered away over the years by inefficiency.
A few months ago, Marylands residential care home on the A6 main road in Chorley was closed. Many of the home's clients had no prior warning. There had been an appeal and a tribunal finding. They rightly telephoned me that day to say, "Why is it that our parents"—or grandparents—"are having to be moved out with no notice?" I should like that to be investigated because it is unacceptable.
As we all know only too well, recently, the home help and care assistance service was massively adjusted by the county council, to the detriment of elderly citizens. I pay tribute to the self-supporting attitude of elderly residents in my Chorley constituency, who are typical of Lancashire and who look after themselves as far as possible, but they need help and assistance, yet that has suddenly been withdrawn.
On 29 August, I wrote to the director of social services to say:
"I understand that recently you have reversed many of the decisions regarding home helps and care assistance—and I greatly welcome this."
I thought that there had been a change of mind, that the county council had realised that it was overspending, had cut here and there and had uncaringly ditched the needs of the elderly. I thought that things were looking up, but no. I received a reply on 10 September from the director of social services, which said:
"I have not reversed any decisions and neither, to the best of my knowledge, have any other senior officers. Some individuals who had home care services withdrawn or reduced in the past have sought re-assessment of their care needs—as they have always been able to do—and in some cases the social care assessment has indicated a current need for services which have then been arranged. I am aware that this has been described in some quarters as a reversal of decisions but that is not an accurate description, and the
number of cases quoted appears to be inaccurate."
I thought that my praise and thanks would be reciprocated and that I would receive a sensible reply. Surely to goodness, it should not be up to the media and Members of Parliament to bring about a change of mind by the county council, in the interests of our constituents. The unacceptable situation in which services were withdrawn should never have occurred.
Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties is that, although—as we all accept—there are some dedicated officers working for the county council, they are constantly constrained when trying to help, by the political direction that they receive from the Labour leadership of the county council social services department, and by the type of policies that led to the unacceptable political propaganda that I mentioned earlier? Even the most dedicated people, who are genuinely concerned about caring, simply are not allowed by their Labour political masters to deliver that care.
Mr. Dover: That is borne out by a reply that I received from the director of social services. I said to her, "If you
926
have been underspending this year and for the past two years, you must have built up reserves." She was completely unaware of any reserves, although she is looking into the matter. It shows that the officials are working as best they can, but their political masters are saying, "Do something totally different from what you really want to do."
Another example of the social services department's inefficiency concerns my constituent, Valerie Smith. Unfortunately, about 10 years ago, she lost a child in a road accident, and because of shock and mental disorder, she was in the sad situation of having another child taken away from her. After all those years, the county council suddenly wrote to her to say, "Your child has been adopted." That caused her great mental anguish, because she thought that she had rights of access and that, having proved that she was improving, she could have the child back. She then received that letter and thought that she would not be able to get her child back. However, the council then wrote to say, "Sorry; we made a mistake when we said that your child had been adopted." That is typical of inefficiency in the county council social services.
Cerebral palsy has been mentioned in the debate. Alice Allen, of Chapel lane, Chorley, is six years old and severely disabled from cerebral palsy. The county council social services issued only one orange badge to her family, although her parents work 26 miles apart from each other. Their routine is that one of them will take Alice to the centre in the morning and the other will pick her up at night. Quite rightly, they raised the issue with county council social services, but the response was, "The situation is very difficult. The rules say this and the rules say that." Senior county council officials should use their discretion to be responsive to the wishes of constituents and to issue a second badge in such cases, so that proper care is seen to be meted out to my constituents.
The purpose of the debate is to show that the county council social services department has an uncaring attitude. That is not a sudden development—Labour has controlled the council for the past 14 years—but the situation has been getting worse. It has been a long time since there was Conservative control of the council, and a caring attitude by the council.
Mr. Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is providing us with a list of the problems that he and many other Conservative Members are experiencing. Does he agree that the response that we receive from the county council social services department is not always what we would wish it to be, and that a small improvement would make the management of our constituencies and action on behalf of our constituents that much easier?
Mr. Dover: I agree entirely. Perhaps it is time for the department to re-examine its arrangement of local offices and to ensure that care is available locally. Occasionally it is necessary to reorganise. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be better if we had more local offices, and more local officials controlling what is happening and responding to local requirements.
We do not like raising the issue of problems in social services, but we are pressed constantly by our constituents, in our surgeries and in letters, about them.

927
That should not be the situation. The Government have allocated more than enough money for social and education services, and for all the county and borough council services. We expect high-quality and caring services—particularly social services—and we want to ensure the best value for money. We have not been achieving those goals. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
11.54 am
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, which concerns not only people in Lancashire, but those across the north-west and in the rest of the United Kingdom, and, of course, most people in Bolton like to think that they are in Lancashire. I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see a delegation from the north-west, which included representatives from Bolton, on the first day of his appointment.
Mr. Elletson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what mandate he thinks he has to speak in the debate? He does not represent a seat in the Lancashire county council area, and he betrayed the electors of Bolton—who voted for a Conservative Member of Parliament. Why does not he resign now, fight a by-election, get a proper mandate and then come back to speak?
Mr. Thurnham: I will not have any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about my interest in the subjects that we are debating today. Those subjects are of concern not only to people in Lancashire, but to those across the north-west and in the rest of the nation.
Mr. Elletson: The hon. Gentleman is taking up our time.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman is not a Lancashire Member of Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Each hon. Member is entitled to be heard with reasonable courtesy. I do not expect what almost amounts to barracking.
Mr. Thurnham: The Minister was good enough to see me on the first day of his appointment. I was grateful to him for doing that, because a delegation had travelled down from the north-west of England in the expectation of seeing his predecessor. I know that it was difficult for him, because he had had the brief for only a few hours, but the delegation was extremely grateful for the opportunity to see him. Various points were made at the meeting, and detailed letters were sent later, under my covering letter of 9 August 1996.
I shall not detain the House for too long with the points raised at the meeting. Representatives of Galebrook nursing home attended, representing the Bolton Association of Residential Care Homes, and raised several issues, including the difficulty of deciding whether people in need of care should be admitted to hospital if they had been admitted incorrectly.
Mr. Mans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about the subject of the
928
debate. The Order Paper clearly states that the debate is about social services in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is talking about a specific case outside Lancashire. Is that in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said that the point that he was making was relevant to the debate. I must listen a little longer to confirm that.
Mr. Thurnham: If Conservative Members were better informed, they would know that people from Lancashire go to Bolton association care homes. Therefore, the issues that I am raising are of as much concern to people in Lancashire as they are to people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such interventions show only Conservative Members' total ignorance of how the care system works. The concerns expressed by the Bolton Association of Residential Care Homes reflect as much on national issues of care as on the concerns expressed earlier in the debate.
Mr. Frank Hessey, from the Lancashire Association of Care Homes, made some points at the meeting, which he set out in a letter of 30 July 1996. I sent a copy of the letter to the Minister. I was a little disappointed to find that it took more than three months to receive a reply to the points raised at the meeting. I had always thought that the Minister was one of the more effective members of the Government, but the delay has shown the difficulty that he has had in mastering his brief. I hope that there will not be such delays in answering correspondence in the future. I also hope that there will be no excessive delays in issuing a White Paper on personal social services. We have been promised that such a White Paper will be published soon, and the newspapers have trailed it as being due in February.
Among the points raised by people from the north-west at the meeting was the need for rights of choice, and information about choice, for people entering care homes. There have been fears that people are not given the proper information, which they should have. I hope that, in the forthcoming White Paper, the Minister will make it perfectly clear that people who are in the process of entering a care home should be given every piece of information necessary for them to arrive at the best decision. We should start by providing proper choice for people going into residential care rather than their being given misleading information.
One of the aspects that is relevant to the debate is the number of judicial cases that have been taken up. The delegation that saw the Minister included representatives of South Lakeland Care Homes Association, who, at the time, had a judicial review pending. I ask the Minister to address the need to reform the law in that respect. It surely cannot be right, when there is so much pressure on care needs, that money is being spent on lawyers' fees in order to argue about the law.
I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Carers National Association, who feel that the law is in a mess. In view of pressures on the provision of care, it would be only right and proper for the Government to ensure that the law is properly understood. There should be a complete reform of community care law, so that all those concerned clearly understand it.

929
The Department of Health issued a press release on Friday about rising needs for community care, not only in Lancashire but elsewhere. It said that there was an 8 per cent. rise in the need for services.
Mr. Atkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your predecessor ruled a moment ago on a similar point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). This debate, about social services in Lancashire, is at the behest of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). The debate is being widened well in excess of the subject that he raised and, as a result, other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Lancashire have been prevented from speaking. Will you rule on whether the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is exceeding the brief?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have been in the Chair for precisely 60 seconds, and in that time the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has been entirely in order.
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) referred to the pressure on budgets, and to the effect on education budgets as well as social services. The press release issued by the Minister's Department showed that there has been an increase in the provision for home help and home care services of 8 per cent. There have been similar increases in the provision for day care services and other personal social services. Such pressure for the provision of extra services occurs not only in Lancashire but throughout the country.
I hope that next week's Budget will take proper account of the rising need because. no doubt, there will be pressure on education budgets if there is not sufficient funding for personal social services. Local authorities will be faced with difficult decisions about how to balance those requirements if the Budget as a whole does not provide extra funding.
Mr. Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in his own words why there has been an underspend on social services in the county of Lancashire this year, as there was two years ago?
Mr. Thurnham: I have no doubt that it would be a coincidence if any authority spent to the penny its exact provision. In avoiding overspending, there is always a possibility of an underspend. What is clear is that there is a great pressure on the budgets generally, and if there is insufficient funding for social services, there will be pressure to reduce spending on education—even if members of all parties agree that education should be a priority.
I hope that the Minister paid full attention to the joint local authorities' submission, which said that an extra £665 million—or 8 per cent. of the total budget—was needed to fund personal social services in the coming year. If that money is not made available, obviously there will be pressure to reduce spending in other budgets at local authority level, just as the hon. Member for Chorley described a moment ago.
The Minister's reply to my letter, following my parliamentary question asking when I would receive a reply, did not address all the points raised at the meeting
930
to which I referred, or in the subsequent correspondence. I hope that he will be able to give full attention to the points that the delegation raised, especially those on cost shunting between health authorities and social services. The Bolton delegation felt that there should be an investigation—
Mr. Atkins: This is an abuse.
Mr. Thurnham: The issues that concern people in Bolton concern people not only in the north-west but in the country as a whole. Many people from Lancashire are in homes in Bolton and, no doubt, people from Bolton go to homes in Lancashire. It is absurd to say that people should not be allowed to go to a home of their choice. Bolton was, of course, in Lancashire for more than 800 years, and 99 per cent. of people in Bolton feel that it should be back in Lancashire. I should have thought that Conservative Members would welcome the prospect of Bolton being returned to Lancashire, as it should have remained in the first place.
The points that have been raised in correspondence with the Minister need a much fuller reply than he was able to give me in his brief letter of 18 November. I hope that he will be able to make further points in the debate, and that the White Paper that is due in February will not be delayed and will address the points very fully.
12.5 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: Following the unnecessary and unwarranted speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I do not have time to elaborate on any of the points that I wanted to make in this debate, which has clearly been called for many reasons, including the usual one of trying to get at Joan Humble, who happens to be the candidate for Blackpool, North.
I want to talk about the issue of overspend. The management letter from the district auditors to county councillors in April said:
"prudence and accountability have been features of the financial arrangements in the County Council for many years. This tradition of excellence continues despite the challenge of present financial constraints."
It is true that, in 1993–94, 4.4 per cent. of the total net budget for social services in Lancashire was underspent and that in the following year, 0.13 per cent. of that budget was overspent. In 1995–96, 1.78 per cent. of that budget was again underspent. Although that is true, the reasons behind it are important.
The budget for Lancashire's social services in 1994–95 was drastically affected by the changes in the Government funding formula for community care, as no doubt the Minister will tell us. The estimated effect at the time was a reduction of £12.8 million for 1994–95. The county then expected a very significant overspend, and equally significant measures were taken by it to avoid that overspend and its knock-on consequences in subsequent years.
The effects of the process were painful and unpopular. It is true that there have been many complaints. Expenditure was squeezed in 1994–95 and 1995–96 and, at the same time, the effect in 1995–96 of the extended non-residential charging policy, which was brought in to counter the expected overspend, was being experienced.

931
The result was a £3.4 million underspend on a net budget of £48.4 million, about which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) complained.
At present, the level of undercommitment is about £7 million, but the monthly increasing level of commitments for this financial year means that the treasurer expects that the spending target will be fulfilled by the end of the year. It is important to note in this debate that the underspend on independent sector purchases in 1993–94 was used to ease financial pressure on the same budget in 1994–95, and the same has been true of 1995–96, moving on to 1996–97.
Capping limits have necessitated budget reductions in social services of £19.4 million in the past five years. It is also important to note that Lancashire has exceeded the Government's figure of 85 per cent. of special transitional grant being spent in the independent sector in every year that that target has been in existence. The council also spends 8 per cent. more on social services than the figures calculated in its standard spending assessment.
I must sit down to allow time for the Front-Bench speeches. I suggest to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South that his next Adjournment debate should concentrate on analysing how the Government have managed to find the £4.4 billion that they did not know they had, and about which they were boasting in the press recently. Will he demand that they restore funding to the levels that existed before the cuts and extra charges imposed this year?
12.9 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome the opportunity for a debate on community care, and the comments of those hon. Members who have raised issues relating to the implementation of care in the community, but I do not welcome the personal attacks on Joan Humble. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) would be the first to complain if I criticised him in the Chamber without giving him an opportunity to respond. I hope that the Conservative election strategy will not involve using the Chamber to attack the Labour opponents of sitting Conservative Members.
I know that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South is off to the safer Surrey suburbs, leaving the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) to struggle to hold his seat against our excellent candidate, Joan Humble. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blackpool, South is aware that Surrey county council, where he is off to, wrote to all its private providers last year asking for free places because it had run out of money. I think that that happened at about the same time as he was castigating Lancashire county council for incompetent management of its budget. As he knows, several areas have community care problems.
My hon. Friends have dealt ably and thoughtfully with some of the specific criticisms on resourcing. As the Minister is aware, the problem for many authorities is dealing with issues of entitlement and choice for individuals within a limited budget, often with a fragmented system of health care in which resources are not being used strategically. The case that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South raised illustrates the challenges for local authorities in allocating resources for
932
individual family needs, taking its budgetary considerations into account. The appeal process considers those issues.
A number of cases have been taken to judicial review. That is unsatisfactory for all involved because they all have to hold their breath. Perhaps the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 could have been more thoughtfully framed. The consequence is that local authorities are attempting to deliver community care in the absence of guidelines. That is convenient for the Government, because they can blame everybody else, but it leads to unfairness, inequity and a deep sense of frustration for parents whose expectations have been raised. I sympathise with Mr. and Mrs. Gardner.
Conservative Members keep coming back to the issue of in-house services versus the independent sector. The public sector, the independent sector and the voluntary sector all have contributions to make to care in the community. It is unfortunate when they are put at each other's throats. I blame the Government for part of that problem. They seem to prefer to act in an atmosphere of competition and confrontation rather than in co-operation£the only framework within which matters can be resolved.
Conservative Members have said several times that they think that money could be saved by putting all the services in Lancashire into the independent sector, which is cheaper. They repeated that point today, but they also said that the primary considerations should be quality and choice. They cannot have it both ways, although they often try to. Last year, when Lancashire county council closed some of its homes£presumably in response to the pleas of Conservative Members that services should be shifted to the private sector£there was an immediate outcry from those same hon. Members. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South featured in the headline:
"MP joins battle to save rest homes."
Calling for a delay to the closure of one home, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), said:
"The most important reason for keeping the home open is the strong link it has with the local community."
The chairman of social services said, with great understatement:
"It is not easy to close down homes."
It is certainly not easy, particularly when Conservative Members on the one hand demand that the council does so and on the other hand criticise it locally when it tries to.
Mr. Atkins rose—
Ms Coffey: I shall not give way, because the right hon. Gentleman has taken up an inordinate amount of time in the debate. It is sad that our debate on community care is characterised by confrontation, conflict and confusion. That arises from the obsession of the Government and the Minister with what competition can deliver. We need to make changes that reward co-operation.
We support the objective of the 1990 Act: to give people genuine choice, particularly the choice to remain in their own homes. For that objective to become reality, there must be co-operation between the purchasing authorities and the range of providers. We believe that the private, voluntary and public sectors should be able to

933
make their important contributions. To blame Lancashire county council is to try to avoid responsibility for the legislation.
A local council cannot deliver the objectives of the Act by itself and nor can private providers or the health authority. Those objectives can be achieved only through partnership, particularly with carers, on whom we depend. They are the ones delivering community care. There are some excellent examples of good practice, showing what can be achieved by local authorities in spite of the obstacles that are put in their way.
The Minister should congratulate Lancashire county council and give it credit for some of the excellent things that it has done: for negotiating care agreements with four health authorities; for establishing joint planning with 12 NHS trusts; for establishing an intensive home care scheme, which facilitates early discharge from hospital and helps people to stay at home; for the provision of respite and short-term care; for the development of care homes to provide day care and outreach services; for the development of day care among independent sector providers; and for the joint development of dispersed housing schemes in the community.
Such initiatives are important for improving services and should be followed up across the country. There should be clearer guidance from the Department of Health on the approach to community care. Community care plans should be properly monitored by the social services inspectorate and by the NHS management executive. There should be better dissemination of information on cost-effective practices that deliver services in the most helpful way for those receiving them.
The research on social care outcomes recently commissioned by the Minister should have started in 1993. The present system of funding is obviously based on best bidders rather than best bids. I understand why. Without research on what the best bids are, it is difficult to decide which of the schemes put forward is best.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Lady has listed several ways in which matters could be improved. Does she agree that inspections for homes in the public sector should be the same as for those in the private sector?
Ms Coffey: Yes. The hon. Gentleman should have been aware that that is part of our policy.
People are sick and tired of the present situation. They are sick and tired of the chaos and failure of the community care scheme. They know that things will get better only when there is a Government prepared to lead. No amount of debates will convince the people of Lancashire that the Government are acting responsibly on community care. There is failure in services to children and in services to families. Resources are being wasted because they are not being used in the best possible way. The elderly, the sick and children are suffering. That is a reflection of a Government who do not care. If they cared, they would have got their act together on community care a long time ago.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I hope that he does not simply bash Lancashire county council over the head, but will respond to the wider community care issues that it is facing.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on securing this important debate. I am delighted also to see my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) present, as this is an important and sensitive subject.
The provision of community care is a vital function of local authorities. It offers help and an independent lifestyle, where possible, for the most frail and vulnerable members of society. Due to the vigilance and concerns of my hon. Friends in Lancashire, it seems that we now have to have an annual debate in the House on the failings of politically motivated county councillors in Lancashire and the provision of care in the county. It is a sad fact of life that old Labour is alive and well and running Lancashire county council—not new Labour for Lancashire, but neanderthal Labour.
At a time when all local authorities should be calmly and responsibly providing community care for the enhancement and improvement of the lives of those most in need, in Lancashire a highly politically motivated group of county councillors has hijacked all that is good about community care and turned it into a party-political football for the basest of motives. I remind those county councillors that the Government's policies for community care have helped many people in Lancashire—and throughout the country—to maintain an independent life and to receive better support in their own homes when faced with the problems brought about by disability or frailty in old age. Local authorities welcomed that policy and wanted the extra responsibility that it gave them. They must now accept responsibility for the decisions that they are making as they implement the policy. That includes Lancashire.
It might be helpful if I remind Labour county councillors in Lancashire of the words of Stanley Baldwin during the St. George's by-election in March 1931. He said:
"Power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."
It is time that councillors lived up to their responsibilities rather than parroted meaningless platitudes and slogans that do nothing to improve or enhance the quality or provision of community care. I shall explain some basic facts of life to them. The transfer of social security funding through the special transitional grant has resulted in substantial increases in the level of care to people in their own homes, in day services and in the use of care homes to provide the short breaks that are essential for many families. People entering residential or nursing care homes have benefited from the assessment process to identify their needs and match them to a care home of their choice.
The funding arrangements that we have put in place have also resulted in substantial growth of independent sector providers, real progress towards a mixed economy of care, and better value for taxpayers' money. Those are considerable achievements, both in Lancashire and elsewhere, but I have been concerned that the

935
implementation of the Government's reforms has not been as smooth and effective in some areas as we would have wished.
Several of my hon. Friends have today raised matters of serious concern about what has been going on in Lancashire. They also did so last year in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North. Those concerns were reiterated today by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South and for Wyre. They expressed concern about financial mismanagement and bureaucracy resulting in sudden cuts in services and other problems that Lancashire has not been able to deal with as it should.
Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Burns: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the sad case of David Gardner. I am concerned about that case. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Gardner's complaint about lack of continuity of care has been upheld, but that Lancashire county council has not yet said what it intends to do as a result. I hope that it will learn from the lessons, problems and stress that the Gardner family had to go through to get to this point. I shall ask my officials to obtain further information about the case and respond in writing to my hon. Friend once we know more from the social services inspectorate about what has been going on.
As a result of the problems highlighted in the debate last year, my predecessor was sufficiently concerned to ask the chief inspector of the SSI to provide a full report on Lancashire. That document confirmed that there was cause for concern about how Lancashire was implementing policy in several respects. Subsequently, the chairman of the social services committee, Mrs. Joan Humble, received our analysis of the problems and was asked to respond with an action plan. Our analysis raised serious issues, which required a considered and constructive response. Mrs. Humble's initial reply did not demonstrate such a response. After time for further and, thankfully, more mature reflection, however, a plan was duly received from Lancashire in September. I have asked the chief inspector of the SSI to monitor and report back to me on the implementation of that plan.
I am concerned to emphasise to Lancashire county council that decisions about the allocation of services should be taken and applied consistently, and with sensitivity to the needs and feelings of service users. The council has responded with assurances that disruptions in the continuity of care, which occurred in earlier years, have now been dealt with and that more effective monitoring arrangements are in place. I hope that that is indeed the case, and I shall be looking for evidence of that when Lancashire's action plan is reviewed.
I am also concerned that changes to the balance of services should avoid unnecessary disruption to service providers. The council has responded with an intention to publish its purchasing policies in a form that will be more readily accessible to service users and providers. Good communication among commissioners, providers and users of services is essential to effective management of
936
local change, and it is particularly important that providers are clear about the intentions of the council in determining its requirements for the future and clarifying how it will use its growing resources to meet those ends and needs.
The funding of community care has featured heavily in this debate, particularly in the comments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Total personal social services funding by the Government is a massive £9 billion including the social security contribution. That is a phenomenal amount of money compared with what was being spent in 1990.
I have also heard a great deal of protest from the county council about its inability to manage community care without even more money. When I look at the figures, however, I see an interesting picture. Within the total amount that the Government consider the county council needs to spend this year to provide a reasonable level of service is an element of £156 million for community care, which includes £61 million for its new responsibilities and the community care reforms. That represents an increase in total resources for community care since 1990–91 of 104 per cent. in real terms—over and above the rate of inflation. That means that Lancashire has done even better than the national average, which was a doubling of resources in real terms during that period.
It is for each local authority to set its budget, but given the accusations made by Lancashire, I find it surprising that it underspent in two financial years. It was clear that the hon. Member for Burnley was unable to explain that and the so-called justification offered by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) made me remain deeply sceptical of the line that he was trying to push.
Given the length of time that I have to reply, I shall not be able to cover all the points that I was prepared to cover. What I will say is that Lancashire is a concern. The SSI has looked into Lancashire. A plan has been drawn up, and it will be monitored with vigour because, as my hon. Friends have so rightly identified in the debate, it is crucial that people in Lancashire are given the best, most satisfactory and most effective care without the worries and disruption that, sadly, they have had to put up with all too often. It is crucial that Lancashire establishes a good rapport and working relationship with the private sector, which plays such an important role in providing help and care for those who need it.
My hon. Friends and others have raised interesting and useful points about how things are going in Lancashire. As I have said, I shall ask the SSI to monitor the situation there closely. In particular, I shall ask the chief inspector to seek further explanation from the council of its financial management and to consider whether further action by central Government is necessary. I do not take that decision lightly, but because of the excessively long-running problems that I have highlighted, it is the least that I can do to ensure that there is better provision of care.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to place it on record, for the guidance of hon. Members, that these are Back-Bench debates and that both Front Benches should recognise that the wind-up should not be longer than 20 minutes.

Waste Recycling (Scotland)
12.30 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate about an important subject. As an Opposition Member, I spend most of my time denouncing Government policy as rubbish, so it is a pleasant change to discuss proposals on rubbish. We can make jokes about it—we shall no doubt hear many puns and bons mots, because I know that the Minister has a reputation for a scintillating sense of humour—but it is a matter of some importance and concern.
The concern is not about the Government's stated strategy and objectives—since the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, everyone recognises that they have been on the right track in trying to give a lead in promoting recycling—but events, admittedly largely unforeseen ones, have combined to render less effective, to put it mildly, some of the efforts made in good faith by Scottish local authorities.
Unless we get a clearer idea of the Government's long-term strategy, some local authorities in Scotland might withdraw from recycling altogether, and that would be a shame. I want to persuade the Government to consider their long-term strategy, and I hope that that will reassure people that their efforts will not be in vain, but will be supported as much as possible by central Government.
The history of recycling in my local authority, which is now Scottish Borders council, is instructive, and other authorities in Scotland will have similar stories. In the old local authority set-up, which came into effect in 1975, the four district councils in the Borders—Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, Roxburgh and Berwickshire—undertook a series of independent and separate recycling projects according to their respective priorities and needs.
After the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Scottish Office's 1991 guidance on recycling, the councils were issued, as waste collection authorities, with a requirement to produce a recycling plan, which had the aim of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000, and everyone supported that as an objective; at the time, we were recycling only about 2 per cent. of household waste, and everyone recognised that we had to improve on that.
The former district councils, as waste collection authorities, did their best through 1991, 1993 and 1995 to co-ordinate among themselves within the resources available and to agree a strategy for the Borders. They secured useful assistance from the local enterprise company, which produced consultants' reports to inform the process, but they were constrained until 1995 by the fact that, for lack of resources, they could not integrate their services.
In the financial year 1995, the four authorities met again to consider the commissioning of a feasibility study into converting as a recycling centre a building that one of them had recently purchased. Each of the constituent authorities, and the local enterprise company, contributed towards another consultants' report. On 1 April 1996, under the reorganisation into unitary authorities, the four district councils were amalgamated with the former Borders regional council to form the Scottish Borders council.
938
In May 1996, the council took up the previous authorities' commitment to recycling, committing £200,000 from its capital budget and £100,000 from current revenue. Almost simultaneously with that ambitious and proper act, with which everyone was pleased—the sums added up, and the proposal made a lot of sense as an attempt to reach the target set by central Government—the paper merchants with whom the council dealt intimated that the price for mixed paper would drop from £35 to £3 a tonne.
In October 1995, the council had been receiving £82 a tonne for mixed paper; the wild fluctuations in market prices were certainly beyond the control of the local authorities. The council's financial estimates for the recycling centre project had been based on what was then considered the conservative figure of £30 a tonne. As if it was not bad enough having the bottom fall out of the market, the merchants then introduced a quota, and would purchase only 85 per cent. of the council's raw material. That immediately produced a glut of recovered material, and a huge backlog began to build up at depots in Galashiels and Hawick, which was another problem for the council.
In September 1996, the council reviewed its strategy, and committed additional resources in the form of extra manpower to separate cardboard from the mixed paper so that it could get a better price. That had a significant impact on the estimated total loss that the council faced, and still faces, of between £75,000 and £100,000 a year-a significant part of the council's cleansing services budget.
To make matters worse, in November 1996, the council was advised by the waste paper merchants that the price for card had reduced from £23 to £20 a tonne; worse still, the price for mixed paper had gone from £3 a tonne to nil: there was no value at all in the mixed paper that the council had collected for recycling.
It became clear at that stage that neighbouring authorities were experiencing similar problems. The local authorities all found that they had to pay the merchants to take the paper off their hands, because otherwise they would have had to use landfill sites to dispose of the paper, and pay £7 a tonne under the landfill tax. I know that Scottish Borders council and other local authorities will have written to the Scottish Office to highlight the problem and outline the difficulties that they may face in the future.
The councils are co-ordinating some activity through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. A catalogue of unexpected financial blows caused by the collapse of the market has hit Scottish Borders council. It is also worried that not only local authorities but all commerce and industry has been taking account of the introduction of the landfill tax.
I entirely support the principle of the landfill tax, and understand what the Government are seeking to do. It makes much sense in principle. However, the draft EC directive on packaging waste, which requires producers, packagers and retailers to examine their operations and recycle packaging material, is compounding the glut of material on the market and leading to even lower prices. That explains the low prices that are being received for recovered goods. The draft directive came on stream only on 1 October, and aims for about 50 per cent. recycled packaging. That will have a major impact and make matters worse.

939
In recent months, Scottish Borders council and its sister authorities have been examining all sorts of alternative markets for recovered materials and for ways out of the mess. Few options are available. Like my next-door neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I have always encouraged the council to go down the route that it has taken. It has always, rightly, had a high profile on environmental issues. Bluntly, unless central Government can do something, it may have to reconsider its environmental policy, which would be a shame.
I conclude with a few suggestions, some of which will be harder than others for central Government to consider. First, we must consider diverting some of the £280,000 that will be payable by Scottish Borders council in a full financial year in landfill tax to help with recycling and the sale of products to the market. Secondly, the Scottish Office should consider introducing a grant system whereby local authorities that meet their Scottish Office targets will receive funding to improve continually on those targets.
Thirdly, the Scottish Office could step in to set an intervention price for recovered materials. I know that that would be difficult, but it is essential that someone should co-ordinate the financial planning and get some order into the process of estimating what this policy and associated actions will cost local authorities. Fourthly, the Scottish Office should consider top-slicing and ring-fencing part of the council's capital allocation for environmental projects. That would allow each local authority to set its own priorities and targets within an allocated budget.
Fifthly, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency must quickly produce a waste strategy. I realise that it has existed only since the beginning of April, but it has been charged with producing a waste strategy. That should include recycling and waste minimisation, with realistic targets for recovering materials for recycling.
Sixthly, any target set by the Scottish Office, or any of its agencies such as SEPA, should be accompanied by the appropriate finance to enable local authorities to meet them. Finally, the Government, in the longer term and in the broadest sense—it cannot be done by the Scottish Office alone—should think about setting minimum targets for the recycled content of goods for sale, which could create a sensible long-term market for recovered products for recycling.
My local authority's experience, which is not unique, shows that, unless a more stable market is established in the supply of recovered materials to recyclers in Scotland, the Government's environmental strategy, with which I agree, will fail to achieve its desired results. The whole policy may founder on the need to implement emergency solutions. That is what Scottish Borders council faces. It is having to take drastic action and do things that it does not think are in the long-term interests of Borders council tax payers, or of the environment. It pleads with central Government to recognise its position, set up a long-term strategy, and come to its aid.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)
940
on securing this important debate. I know that he does not regard the matter as a waste of time. That will be the full extent of my humour in this debate. I will not compete with the usual rubbish that comes from the hon. Gentleman. However, I appreciate the opportunity of dealing with the important subject of recycling targets for Scottish local authorities.
Recycling is part of the much wider issue of waste management generally. It might be helpful if I begin by setting out in broad terms the Government's policy on recycling and on waste management as a whole.
The Government recognise the importance of the waste management industry. Commercial, industrial and household waste account for around a quarter of the annual total of waste. We are especially aware of the scope to add value to much of the waste handled. The principal vehicles through which value can be added are re-use and recycling. We are therefore especially keen to encourage an approach to waste management that seeks opportunities to treat waste as a potentially valuable resource.
The Government subscribe to the idea of a broad waste management hierarchy. The options in such a hierarchy are reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery, and disposal. I wish to deal with the recycling and recovery option, which includes composting elements of the waste stream to make a usable product, and energy recovery from waste. In general, however, recycling is considered to be the recycling of specific materials. To be effective, it requires the active involvement of a wide range of parties, such as individual citizens, voluntary organisations, local authorities and industry.
The role of local authorities in the recycling process is the main focus of this debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that, in the 1990 White Paper on the environment, the Government set a target of recycling half of all household waste that can be recycled by 2000. It is estimated that that broadly equates to a target of 25 per cent. of all household waste.
In parallel, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced a range of measures designed to create a more favourable climate for recycling. It introduced a scheme of recycling credits, and placed a requirement on all waste collection authorities to produce waste recycling plans. It also required waste disposal authorities to have regard to the desirability of including terms and conditions to maximise recycling in their waste disposal contracts.
The Government have also introduced the landfill tax—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. It is the first stand-alone environmental tax to be introduced in the United Kingdom. It applies the "polluter pays" principle, and will promote a more sustainable approach to waste management. It will give waste producers a powerful incentive to cut the amount of waste that they send to landfill.
That has already led to the setting up of materials recovery facilities in Scotland where waste items that may be used in recycling are extracted from the waste recovered before it is sent to landfill. Another advantage is that we will be using income from the tax to reduce employers' national insurance contributions, thereby shifting taxation from jobs to pollution. I hope that that addresses one of the hon. Gentleman's points on using the funds received from the landfill tax.

941
The Government's policy on recycling is influenced by activity in the European Commission. The Commission proposes legislation on other measures designed to achieve recycling and recovery; the directive on packaging is an example. The Commission also influences recycling through its network of priority waste stream groups. The UK Government participate in those groups and seek to ensure that their outputs are consistent with Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recycling targets, particularly in the context of local authorities and household waste. The Government's approach is to set challenging, but realistic, targets. For household waste, we have set a target of recycling half the recyclable element of all waste by the year 2000. That target equates broadly to a target of 25 per cent. of all household waste. As a general target, it is not binding on individual authorities.
We recognise that recycling is achieved more readily in some areas than in others—for example, because of geographical factors and population density. While authorities should set themselves a target of recycling 25 per cent. of all household waste, in practice those unable to achieve that target will be bolstered by those that are highly successful and surpass it.
Concerns have been expressed on behalf of Borders regional council, not only by the hon. Gentleman today, but by the council, in correspondence with the Scottish Office. As the hon. Gentleman said, other councils share those concerns. The particular problem appears to have arisen from the slump in demand for waste paper and the effect that that has had on prices. Borders council has estimated that, as a result, its income level could drop by up to £100,000 in the current year. That is also likely to be combined with a need to dispose of the surplus material collected to landfill.
It has therefore been suggested that the Government should set an intervention price for recycled materials, to encourage and support local authorities in achieving recycling targets and to defray costs. While I can understand the nature of the problems faced, I do not think that the Government should intervene to stabilise prices.
Recycling on a national, European and global scale should be allowed to stabilise through self-regulation. Intervention in the past—through the German packaging ordinance—caused significant problems in the market, and resulted in a flood of material being collected well beyond the capacity of the existing recycling plant. That pushed down the prices paid for such material throughout Europe, and I do not believe that we should seek to establish an intervention price mechanism.
It has also been suggested that the Customs and Excise should consider a short-term exemption from landfill tax for paper wastes that are required to be landfilled as a result of the market's inability to accept the material from suppliers. There are already some exemptions from that tax, but they generally reflect the fact that the material involved is not suitable for recycling. Those exemptions include waste dredged from ports, and the burial of domestic pets at pet cemeteries. Paper products, however, are eminently recyclable, and it is not sensible or appropriate to offer the exemptions sought. Were waste paper material not specifically separated from the waste stream, it would naturally be disposed of through landfill.
942
It has also been suggested that an investigation should be undertaken into the existing market for recyclable paper waste to establish whether and when material will continue to be required from suppliers such as local authorities. The demand for waste paper is a derived demand, as it is largely dependent on the demand for the final product. It is not uncommon for supply to exceed demand, and for prices to decline.
It is not for the Government to undertake the sort of investigation suggested. The implementation of the European Community's packaging directive will lead to a recovery of the recycled paper and cardboard market. In Britain, its implementation, through the producer responsibility for packaging waste scheme, is likely to have the longer-term effect of forcing a growth in recovery. The continuing high price of virgin pulp should also facilitate the recovery of the recycled product.
A further reason for optimism is the likely future demand for recycled paper from the far east. There is also potential for growth in the United Kingdom paper manufacturing capacity if the products are competitive. All those factors lead me to the conclusion that markets for recycled waste paper will become viable.
The hon. Gentleman raised two points involving the treatment of expenditure on recycling in the context of the overall local government finance framework. First, he suggested that spending on environmental projects might be ring-fenced. Secondly, he asked whether extra grant could be made available to authorities for the collection of waste for recycling. Both those points boil down either to an increase in public expenditure or to a reduction in local authority discretion.
It would in principle be possible to separate recycling expenditure from all other local authority expenditure, and it would be possible to introduce a specific grant scheme for such expenditure. However, if one or both of those courses were adopted without affecting existing local authority expenditure provision, that would be a straightforward addition to public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well the overriding importance of keeping that expenditure under control.
Alternatively, the proposals could be implemented within existing expenditure provision. That would, however, reduce the expenditure provision and grant available for general distribution to authorities. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is opposed to the introduction of new specific grants, because the process fetters local authorities' discretion in using the provision available to them. The Government are concerned that specific grant schemes introduce administrative costs, not only for the Government, but for local authorities. Those schemes use up resources that are better spent on service provision.
Having listed general points of principle, I must also ask the hon. Gentleman what other candidates he has in mind. Local authorities provide many valuable services to the community and there are many other cases where an argument could be made for some special treatment. At the end of that road lies a highly controlled and expensive centrally directed grant and expenditure system, in which much of the discretion would lie with central Government rather than local authorities.

943
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes that that should happen, which is why he makes his devolution proposals for a central tax-raising parliament in Edinburgh that would dominate local authorities and take away many of their decision-making powers.
Mr. Kirkwood: Rubbish.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Rubbish," continuing in the same spirit as he began the debate. But he advocates such a proposal, which would waste valuable resources. It would set up an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy, which would not help to solve the problem.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is drawing up a waste management strategy for Scotland. He asked when that would be available, and was honest enough to recognise that it is a new organisation, with many tasks. Clearly, an important element of its strategy will be recycling. That strategy is currently being prepared, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's call for it to be drawn up as quickly as possible—it will clearly be important.
Recycling needs to be seen in its wider context. The choice of the most appropriate waste management option must depend, to some degree, on the local circumstances that determine both the environmental and economic advantages and disadvantages of each option. To be credible in that context, recycling must be seen to be sustainable in both environmental and economic terms. However, the Government firmly believe that recycling must play an increasingly prominent part in the United Kingdom's waste management strategy.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the difficulties faced by Borders council. I know that the same problems are being faced by many other councils. He talked about the variation of price over the past years. Current prices for waste paper are very low.
Mr. Kirkwood: They cannot go much lower.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is right. He talked about the prices a year or so ago—about one year ago, the price was about £100 per tonne, and in the past four to five years there have been major fluctuations in price. I believe that the market will return and prices will increase. I urge the council not to make hasty decisions that might undo some of the significant good that it is clearly trying to do in its waste strategy. I trust that it will look at the medium to longer-term prospects in the marketplace and continue to develop its proposals, with a view to ensuring that it is in a good position to take advantage of higher market prices when they return.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for raising this subject today. I know that it is an important issue, which is recognised by councils throughout Scotland. I see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is present, and I am sure that she, too, appreciates these problems. I believe that the Government's policy in respect of recycling and environmental control is absolutely right, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire recognised that in his speech today.

Brewing Industry
1 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: This debate has almost become an annual event, thanks to the kindness of a succession of Speakers and Deputy Speakers. Although I have struck out—as our transatlantic cousins would say—on two previous annual Adjournment debates in which I raised the subject of the brewing industry in general and my brewing constituency of Burton in particular, I hope to score a sensational home run this time.
Much has been happening recently in the field of brewing, especially in Burton on Trent, where we have the finest breweries, in which Bass, Carlsberg-Tetley and Marston's manufacture their products and maintain the great Burton brewing tradition. Brewery workers, shareholders and, above all, the public are delighted that we have all-day opening and now Sunday afternoon opening as a result of the Government's sensible stripping away of overregulation.
The industry—whether manufacturing, retail, leisure or management—will now have the opportunity of attracting a new generation of young workers because we have lowered the age limit for working in bars, under proper supervision and with the obligation of further training. We welcome the lifting of restrictions and the reduction in tax on amusement machine prizes in pubs, which has resulted in the amusement machine industry in Burton being able to save itself and start to flourish once again.
Children certificates, although a good idea, have sadly attracted a low take-up of about only 3 per cent. That is largely due to regional inconsistencies between licensing boards. Some boards impose conditions—such as requiring nappy-changing facilities or low bar stools to avoid accidents—that are prohibitive and increase costs and so are not worth implementing, which is a shame.
Little beyond consultation has taken place in respect of the extra hour's opening on Friday or Saturday evenings, which might do more to defuse potential trouble from gangs of youths in town centres. The Bill on the stocks to limit under-age drinking in public places will be widely welcomed. Perhaps what we really need is a new, all-embracing licensing statute—the last one is now 32 years old and my commentary on it, which was written for Current Law in 1964, is that much out of date.
I turn now to the issue of the tied house—the partnership between brewer and publican whereby the publican can enter the brewing industry with only limited resources but can still flourish, in return for a commitment to sell a particular brewer's beers. Of course, that partnership, which could be exploitative, has been modified over the years to ensure that it is not, by giving the publican the rights to buy beer brands from other brewers, to choose his own supplier of wines, spirits and soft drinks, and to be protected by landlord and tenant legislation.
Some argue that the tie could restrict competition and keep beer prices high, as indeed it might; but the better view is that the abolition of the tie would be more likely to lead to the closure of many regional and smaller brewers, the increased domination of the market by fewer national brewers, higher prices and lower employment. Happily, the Government have adopted that view and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary might want to reaffirm that today. Certainly, the industry welcomes the support from the Government in upholding the tie.

945
That support is especially welcome as the European Commission has shown an inclination to challenge the continuance of the exemption that we enjoy for the tie when it expires at the end of 1997. The Commission is challenging our arrangements for guest beers on the ground that our requirement that such beers should be cask conditioned discriminates against Euro-beers. That is, of course, complete nonsense because only 10 per cent. of British pubs have to have guest beers at all and we import properly £230 million-worth of Euro-beers a year, which is more than any other European country imports.
We have the most open beer market in Europe. If only it were possible to see British beers on sale in German pubs in the same way as German beers are sold in British pubs, we should all be thankful. The brewing industry welcomes the Government's robust defence in Europe of British brewing and British pubs. The British people have absolutely no wish to be pushed around by Brussels in the important matter of British beer.
The biggest problem affecting the industry today, as it has been whenever I have raised the issue over the past three or four years, is the level of beer duty. For that reason, I am delighted to see that my delightful hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be answering the debate. The root of the problem is that we pay 30.7p per pint in duty on our beer, whereas the French pay 4.4p per pint—we pay over seven times as much. To a lesser extent, that gap exists in relation to all other European countries. Our beer duty is much greater than that of most other countries in Europe.
I concentrate on our trade with France because, France being nearer to us than other European countries, that is where most of the imports to this country come from. As a result of the differential in excise duty, imports from France have risen over the past three years from 400,000 pints to 1.1 million pints a day. That represents 4.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom beer market and £700 million a year in beer sales in British pubs, which is more than the sales of any UK regional brewer.
As a result of the price differential, a third of French beer is carried across the channel in hired vans and much is sold illegally at car-boot sales on council housing estates or door to door. The van trade in smuggled beer costs every pub in the country over £3,000 a year in lost beer sales and the Exchequer loses £250 million which, of course, the taxpayer has to make up. The number of vans crossing the channel by ferry, never mind those coming under the channel—such crossings have, sadly, temporarily stopped, but we did not know how many vans were involved anyway—is more than 64,000 a year, which is 175 a day. Each van of smuggled beer contains 1,500 pints, which is more than the weekly trade of a small community pub.
Surveillance by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—which I still prefer to call "the brewers' society"—has identified vans from Dundee, Aberdeen, Truro, Bangor and Northern Ireland, so it is not only a London and south-east England trade.
Another aspect that should worry my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, as well as the Chancellor's Euro-partners, is the fact that in 1994, Customs and Excise recorded UK beer exports to France of 57 million pints, but French customs recorded only 26 million pints entering France from the UK. Thirty-one million pints
946
appear to have got lost. How? The likely explanation is that those exports existed only on paper. Why? To allow UK beer duty to be reclaimed as pretend sales to France. Those pretend exports are diverted to the UK market, and sold at full retail price as though UK duty and VAT has been paid on them. In that way, fraudsters make about £30 million a year. If the duty differential did not exist, those fraudsters would have to seek another way to cheat the Revenue.
What is the practical effect of that tax differential? My answer is that, as about 60 per cent. of cross-channel beer purchases replace what would otherwise be sold in British pubs and off-licences, about 10,000 pubs are likely to close in the next five years, and as a result 90,000 jobs will be lost in the UK in pubs, breweries and suppliers.
The Government must want to do something about that. What should they do? The industry's answer is to reduce excise duty to a level that removes the incentive for cross-border shopping and bootlegging. The reduction could be phased over five years, to reduce the rate to about 6.5p per pint by the year 2000. That would be a really good way to celebrate the millennium.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor could start with a cut of 4p in next week's Budget, so this debate is timely. That is why I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Speaker's Office for allowing me to initiate it, so that I can affect the intentions of the Chancellor in the Budget in a few days' time.
The Treasury will argue, as it always does, that cutting beer duty would reduce tax revenues, which would mean that £2 billion had to be found elsewhere, or that the public sector borrowing requirement had to be raised at a time when it needed to be reduced to make way for tax cuts. But I wonder what assessment the Treasury has actually made of the benefits of reducing tax.
Would not such a reduction inevitably lead to lower retail prices, therefore to more beer sales, and therefore to more tax revenue to offset part of the loss? Would it not inevitably boost jobs in pubs, breweries and related industries and generate higher profits and tax returns? Would it not inevitably lower the retail prices index and therefore pay settlements? Would not those factors prolong the fall of inflation, which the Government have achieved to their great credit, increase competitiveness, another of their achievements, increase economic growth, yet another of their successes, and produce a higher tax yield?
If my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is unsure about that, I must report that Oxford Economic Forecasting, using the Treasury's economic model, can demonstrate that 6p off the duty on a pint of beer would have just those effects and would reduce inflation by 0.2 per cent. That organisation says that official estimates substantially overstate the true first-year cost of cutting beer duty, which would actually reduce the public sector borrowing requirement in its second year.
I have heard it said that such a reduction would only lead brewers to maintain the high beer price, but prices in UK pubs are already considerably cheaper than those in the bars of Europe. The wholesale price of beer in Britain has fallen by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past three years and 75 brewing and pub company members of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association have promised to pass on fully any reduction in beer duty in the coming Budget.

947
Our brewing industry is one of the oldest and best of British industries. Directly and indirectly, it employs 750,000 people, even now. Our pubs are the finest in the world, although their number is steadily decreasing. Beer is the most popular alcoholic drink in Britain today, and we consume a fifth of the European Union total, spending more than £13 billion a year and raising more than £4.5 billion for the Treasury—a substantial proportion of which is raised in Burton upon Trent. That is the equivalent of 3p off income tax.
Brewing is a national institution, and my constituency is at its heart. For, as the great poet A. E. Housman wrote:

"Say for what were hop-yards meant,

Or why was Burton built on Trent'?

Oh many a peer of England brews

Livelier liquor than the Muse,

And malt does more than Milton can

To justify God's ways to man."

We in Burton, we in the brewing industry in the country, ask for relief from unfair taxation. Is it really too much to ask?
1.16 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on being granted this debate—his annual Adjournment debate on a subject dear to his heart and to the heart of many Members of Parliament and many people in the country.
I have a sad confession to make. I am a cider drinker, not a beer drinker. I hope that that at least puts me in the category of the alcohol consumer, even if I do not consume the product that is brewed in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: May I invite my hon. Friend to come to Burton-on-Trent soon and frequently, so that I may introduce her to the joys of Burton beer?
Mrs. Knight: My hon. and learned Friend has already tried to introduce me to the charms of Burton beer, not altogether successfully, but I will visit his constituency with pleasure. I believe it is well known that, when one is at least a quarter of an hour out of Burton on the A38, it is possible to smell the hops through the car windows, and that smell is a very tempting prospect.
The Government acknowledge the importance of the brewing industry. The industry contributes significantly to Government revenues, is a wealth creator in the economy generally and plays a socially cohesive role in pubs throughout the country. It is a considerable employer, directly and indirectly. As my hon. and learned Friend's contribution developed, I understood why the debate was timely.
No right hon. or hon. Member would expect me to divulge the Chancellor's Budget intentions—there are a few more days to wait—but I can say that the worries that my hon. and learned Friend expressed about the impact on brewers of cross-border shopping and smuggling are a
948
very significant factor, which the Chancellor will take into account in reaching his decisions. He has done so for the past few years, and I know that he will do so again.
Mr. William Ross: May we be assured that the effects of the smuggling of tobacco will also be taken into account?
Mrs. Knight: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My right hon. and learned Friend will take into account all matters relating to cross-border smuggling when he reaches his decisions.
My hon. and learned Friend clearly set out some of the general aspects relating to the brewing industry in his opening remarks. In so doing he recognised the many recent changes to that industry. Community pubs are popular, but there have unfortunately been closures in some areas—for a number of reasons. The off-licence trade has, over the years, taken business away from the pubs, and in the off-sales sector supermarkets have increased trade at the expense of off-licence shops. Social trends and changes in drinking patterns have also played their part.
Over the past 30 years or so the main drink of practically every country in Europe has declined as a proportion of the whole: beer is down in beer-drinking countries and wine is down in wine-drinking countries. The industry has responded to these changes in consumption. At retail level, it has reassessed the pub structure to help it compete more successfully. We now have a variety of types of pub catering for particular groups—targeting a high-spending young clientele with theme bars, Irish bars and so on. Then there are community or country pubs, which have generally been made more attractive to customers by renovation and improved facilities—including the idea of the family pub catering for children.
I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says about the concerns regarding regional inconsistencies as between children's licences; we shall take a careful look at that.
I think that the family pub is an excellent idea. It means that I can take my children into the pub with me and they do not have to go through what I went through. My father used to leave me in the car in the car park with a fizzy orange drink which I did not like and, occasionally, a packet of crisps, while he stayed in the pub for what seemed like hours. I am sure that it was not really that long, but certainly, being able to take one's children into pubs leads to a more family-like atmosphere and is a great benefit. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Government Whip, is nodding in agreement. He too has children who can benefit from these changes.
More people now drink at home because of drink-driving laws and because of home entertainments, but also because of significantly cheaper drinks being available in supermarkets. It is important to recognise and to cater for these long-term trends.
My hon. and learned Friend mentioned his concern about the guest beer provision. Even though I am not a beer drinker, I am well aware of the concerns that many have expressed on this matter. Indeed, the organisation CAMRA has brought it to many people's attention. The European Commission alleges that cask-conditioned beer is not produced in any significant quantity in other

949
member states, so the provision infringes article 30 of the treaty of Rome by discriminating against beer producers in other member states. The Government dispute that view.
To resolve the issue, on 11 October officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met Commission officials responsible for the free movement of goods in the single market, and representatives of the CBMC—the European brewers federation. They met to clarify the facts behind the dispute. It has been agreed that the CBMC will provide information on the extent of cask-conditioned beer production in other member states. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the United Kingdom is committed to resolving the issue. We do not believe that the guest beer provision breaches article 30 of the treaty.
Cross-border shopping affects not just the brewers; all involved in the production, distribution and retailing of alcoholic drinks are affected. On the other hand, the single market has brought a great number of benefits to UK business generally, to the extent that I notice that some brewers are reporting healthy sales on the continent.
Tax-induced cross-border shopping has clearly had an effect on the brewing industry, but since 1993 UK beer production has continued to increase, and most major and regional brewers report increased profits.
The drinks industry is working closely with Customs and Excise. It has been doing so for some time, first to agree the amount of personal imports of alcoholic drinks, and secondly to look at cross-border issues. The calculation that has been agreed is that in 1994 between 3 and 5 per cent. of the UK market was affected by the importation of alcoholic drinks. There is also general agreement on the overall amount of legitimate importation and smuggling. Agreement is still to be reached on how much of what is purchased cheaply abroad is in substitution for what would be bought here, and how much is additional consumption.
I can assure the House that we are not complacent. It is, however, important to keep the cross-border issue in proportion. Customs' own estimates of revenue lost—in duty and VAT—for legitimate cross-border shopping last year put the figure at £210 million for all alcoholic drinks. The share attributable to beer was £40 million. That assumes that half the trade is additional; but even if none of it was additional, the figures would not square with some of the scenarios about which we have read.
Customs conducted its own survey earlier this year to arrive at an estimate of revenue evaded by smuggling. That estimate provides a similar figure of £210 million for all alcoholic drinks, but with a much larger share attributable to beer, at £110 million. The actual loss of
950
revenue will be less, since some of the smuggling is likely to represent additional consumption. Taking legitimate cross-border shopping and smuggling together, this represents less than 5 per cent. of the UK's beer consumption. The total tax collected on beer was over £4.7 billion last year.
That is not to say that we are doing nothing about the problem, or that Customs is not paying attention to this vital area. The top priority is to catch the smugglers.
Mr. Alan Meale: Customs and Excise forecasts that by the year 2000 illegally imported alcoholic drinks will have doubled in quantity—a frightening statistic that will mean hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue. With Customs and Excise already stretched to the limit, does the Minister agree that action is needed now?
Mrs. Knight: I was just coming to that. What are we doing about the smuggling problem? Smuggling, dealing in smuggled goods and buying smuggled goods are all crimes. Customs has 300 staff employed on single market work, most of them directly involved in the anti-smuggling effort. Many, if not most, of them work at the ports, but some work inland providing intelligence. For instance, they are watching more closely the frequent crosser—but my hon. and learned Friend will excuse me if I do not go into the detail of what we are doing to stop smugglers. We do not want to give them notice of our intentions.
My hon. and learned Friend used the argument about harmonisation—that harmonising duties across the European Union would spell the end of smuggling as a problem. Some heavy costs are associated with that. A reduction of 10 per cent. in the duties on alcohol would result in a loss of £500 million to the Exchequer. To reduce our duties to French levels would cost roughly £3.5 billion. That is the sort of sum in question. We take every opportunity to press our case in the Commission. We want other countries to adopt a more practical attitude to alcohol duties.
It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that the Treasury model has been used by some observers, but that model does not cater for the narrow, specific area of one industry, such as the brewing industry. We are discussing with those involved the reasons why their estimates are incorrect.
I conclude by reiterating that we take the matter extremely seriously. All the issues raised by my hon. and learned Friend will inform the decisions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor with regard to the Budget that he will present to the House next week.

Causeway Hospital, Coleraine
1.30 pm
Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that I have had to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. I had hoped that tender documents for the hospital would already have been out, but they are not. I must therefore ask the Minister the reasons for the delay.
The debate on how best to provide good-quality medical and hospital treatment for Coleraine and the surrounding area has been going on for many years. I was told today that at least one person was brought over from England in 1952 to help to design the Coleraine hospital. For much of the time since then, there has been a deep division as to whether there should be one hospital or two—one at Coleraine and another at Ballymoney.
The matter was finally settled in favour of a single hospital at Coleraine, and the debate then began as to whether the existing site should be used, or whether it would be better to create the badly needed acute hospital in a brand new green-field location. The latter option was finally accepted, and a site was identified and purchased on the outskirts of Coleraine.
There is no question about the need for the provision of comprehensive hospital services in the Coleraine and North Antrim areas. In the catchment area, there is a population of about 110,000; that number doubles during the summer months, owing to the movement of many people to the north coast, which, as the House will know, is a major tourist attraction.
The present hospital is, to put it mildly, in a poor and deteriorating condition. For example, the out-patients department is still housed in wartime nissen huts. Such accommodation was never suitable for that purpose. The buildings, which were a second world war temporary construction, were originally designed to have a 10-year life. After the war, many such buildings were purchased by farmers and used to house farm animals, potatoes, turnips, chickens and everything else. All the animals, the farm produce have long since disappeared, but people are still using the huts. That is unacceptable.
The medical wards are prefabricated buildings, which are also long past their expected life span. In addition, many non-clinical services are long overdue for upgrading. The kitchens, the boiler plant and the mechanical and electrical services all need urgent work. When there is heavy rain, buckets are needed to catch the leaks. I understand that the mortuary is the most recent part of the hospital to come under assault.
Given the situation in the hospital, the board and the trust have been unwilling to spend money on major repairs in recent years, as they were aware that the new Causeway hospital was due to come into use—originally by 1999, but, according to a more recent estimate, by the end of 2000 at the latest.
The result is that, if the new hospital does not go ahead now, the necessary upgrading to meet the immediate requirements of the statutory authorities, which in the circumstances have been very fair to the hospital, are currently estimated to cost £5.3 million. To bring the facilities up to modern standards would cost £26 million, and we would still be left with an old hospital and worn-out buildings.
952
The site of the present hospital is a valuable one, right in the centre of Coleraine. No doubt it will bring a considerable sum to the coffers of the trust when it can be sold, as soon as the new hospital is built.
I am deeply concerned about the seemingly endless delays in starting building work, and my concern is shared by the entire community that is to be served by the new hospital.
The need for the hospital, its clinical profile and the estimated costs have been examined in detail no fewer than four times, and every time the need for the hospital was proven. The original option appraisal exercise took place in 1990. It was detailed and thorough, and concluded that the hospital must be built. There was a review in 1993 and early 1994 on new targets and throughput, and another review later in 1994 regarding a reduction of 4,000 sq m relating to capital charging. A further review was conducted later in 1994 and early 1995. To everyone's astonishment, a fourth review was called for during the current year, which ended with the same result. Such a detailed examination of a proposed new hospital is unprecedented.
It is clear from various letters that the questions raised by the Department were simply nit-picking, for the issues could and should all have been dealt with far more expeditiously. Two or three meetings at senior level with the board and the trust should have sorted out all the problems, without the endless inquiries that have been made.
The attitude of the Ministers involved in the saga has been plain. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who originally gave approval in 1992, was forthright. He stated on 28 January 1992 that he had identified the funds and set out the time scale—he said that it was the only realistic time scale—and he expected the new hospital to open in 1999. He said that he hoped that his announcement would facilitate the process—he was referring to a process of rationalisation between the existing hospitals—by reassuring those who may have harboured doubts about the depth of the Government's commitment to the construction of the new Causeway hospital.
Baroness Denton, who was formerly in charge of this aspect of Northern Ireland's government and provision, gave a verbal assurance to Mr. Bill Tweed, the chief executive of the Causeway trust, on 15 July 1994. Her predecessor, Lord Arran, gave the same assurance on 22 December 1993—a lovely Christmas box, which has not yet been delivered. The present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who I am glad to see on the Front Bench, renewed the assurance twice, on 18 January 1995 and again to me personally on 22 March 1995.
To date, £7 million has been spent on site purchase, the new laboratory, professional fees and considerable siteworks. I have a colour photograph showing the entire area—wonderful roads and entrance, but unfortunately no hospital. The difficult rationalisation process, which the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes considered a vital prerequisite in 1992, has been put into effect, not without some difficulty and resistance. It was driven through by the board and the trust on the basis that the new hospital was coming. I am told that the result of the final examination requested by the Health and Social

953
Services Executive has recently been delivered, and it shows that any redesign at this stage would be quite uneconomical.
The result of all this is that the trust is ready to go ahead once the Minister gives clearance for the project, and there is no reason why he should not do so, for, in the expenditure plans and priorities for Northern Ireland published in March this year, the sums required were set out on page 260, in table 9.29.
There is one error, in that the original year of completion was to be 1999, not 2000, as shown in the publication, and the sums already expended are slightly higher than those shown, but that is not unexpected. The provision for 1996–97 is just over £8 million, so in March this year the Government were still on course, and clearly expected the project to go to tender before the end of 1996. The documentation should have been finalised, and they should already be in the process of seeking tenders.
The estimates included sums for the redevelopment of the Royal Victoria and Altnagelvin hospitals. Altnagelvin was in the 1995 expenditure plans. The Royal Victoria was not, but the 1996 estimate shows that some £5 million will be spent in the relatively near future.
Given the history, it is perfectly clear why my constituents and I were sure that we could rely on the assurances that I have mentioned, plus private chats with Ministers down the years, all of which were given on behalf of the Government by so many Ministers on so many occasions. We were certain that the hospital would be built. But all the time, nagging concerns were expressed to me at various times by the professionals involved, by the medical establishment in the catchment area, by the local council and by members of the general public, who, naturally, were taking a keen interest in these matters.
I was concerned enough to write to the Minister on 20 September last. To be frank, his reply of 22 October thoroughly alarmed me, for there seemed a definite retreat from the assurances that were given. I did not like the resiling that I saw in the letter.
My alarm is rapidly turning to anger, for I am also aware that, despite the fact that approval for the Causeway hospital was given so long ago—at the beginning of 1992—the Royal Victoria, which received approval in May 1993 for its refurbishment, redevelopment or whatever, and Altnagelvin, which received approval for its major works in 1994. are at precisely the same stage as the Causeway hospital project. It is quite remarkable that they have managed to catch up, but it is not without significance that neither of those two projects ever had a comprehensive review at the beginning. They had in comparison a very casual examination of what was required and proposed. It is remarkable, and we need a fuller explanation.
The entire community wants to know why the Coleraine project has been subjected to these long delays, all of which lay within the Department. Much money has been spent. The site is ready. The design and commission teams are in place and are already paying for their rented accommodation. Frankly, they will run out of work if the project does not go ahead. They will soon have to be disbanded, and it will be difficult to get them back together again. The list of contractors has been selected.
The trust is ready to go, despite the obstacles put in its path. Many hoops were put up, and the trust and the board hopped neatly through them one after the other.
954
The contractors met all the deadlines as soon as humanly possible, and much sooner than some persons would have liked. They are ready to roll.
The perception of the community that would be served by the hospital, particularly in Coleraine, is that the Causeway is the victim of a sustained campaign of discrimination. Only a clear commitment to go ahead now would remove that perception from the minds of my constituents.
1.44 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a very serious matter for the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for myself. I remind the Minister that large sums were spent through the Province on a promise that the Waveney hospital in Ballymena would be the main acute hospital in the area. The tragedy is that, with the closing of the hospital in Ballycastle and the rundown of the hospital in Ballymena, there is currently no acute service hospital nearer than Antrim for my constituents. If the Causeway hospital does not go ahead, all the people, from as far north as Ballycastle, will have to travel to Antrim.
This is a very serious matter, and all of us are seriously concerned about it. We thought that we had it resolved by the promise of a new hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but on the periphery of my own. It was called the Causeway because it was to serve both communities. As the hon. Gentleman said, Minister after Minister—the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Earl of Arran, Baroness Denton and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who will reply today—gave us assurances on two occasions.
There are serious questions that the Minister must answer today. First, why all the reviews? It seems strange that one review is carried out in September 1994 and another in October 1994. Why? No other new hospital in our country has had such treatment. The hon. Gentleman is right: people are saying that there is discrimination in this case. This has not happened in the other new hospitals built. An appraisal was carried out in 1995. In June 1996, there was yet another. Why all these appraisals, when it was decided that the hospital was needed and that it would be built?
Then, of course, we have the fact that the Causeway hospital development group met monthly for four years. It has had 49 meetings. Now there is a question mark over the whole affair. What about the promises made to the medical staff, and the rationalisation that was necessary for the configuration of the new hospital?
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman speaks of rationalisation. Does he recall that, between 1982 and 1986, the Northern Ireland Assembly agreed that rationalisation should proceed? At that time, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I asked whether slippage money could be used for rationalisation, and millions were returned to the Treasury.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I recall that very well, because it was a matter about which people were urgently concerned. Promises were made to staff, particularly consultant medical staff, on the radical changes that were to take place because of the new hospital.

955
Will the Minister confirm that the Causeway hospital site cost £0.85 million, the Causeway laboratory £1.89 million, the advanced siteworks £1.18 million and the main project £2.4 million? What is the estimated cost of the total upgrading of the present facilities if the delay is lengthened? Has the commissioning team been stood down? Have officers' leases ended? If the design team is stood down, will its members seek compensation? What is the position on putting out tenders? When will tenders be issued?
I know that the Minister is concerned about the matter—he is not unsympathetic. However, we must answer to our constituents, and we need answers today at the Dispatch Box.
1.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for the opportunity to outline the Government's record and position in relation to the Causeway hospital. I recognise that the matter is close to his heart. Similarly, I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is committed to the project. Perhaps more importantly, I am aware of the concerns of the local population from the range of correspondence which has come to me recently.
As the hon. Members helpfully explained, the campaign for a new hospital serving the Causeway area has been active for many years. In 1976, the Northern health and social services board set out its strategy for the development of acute hospital services. It was based on the provision of two modern hospitals to rationalise and concentrate services from a range of small dispersed units which were in poor condition and hopelessly ill equipped to meet the needs of modern clinical practice and standards of care.
A new area hospital at Antrim is to serve primarily the southern part of the board area, and the northern end of the board area is to be served by a new hospital in the Coleraine area, which would enable rationalisation of the Coleraine, Route, Robinson and Dalriada hospitals.
As hon. Members are aware, the first element of the strategy was finally achieved—after a slight delay—with the opening of the Antrim area hospital by the Secretary of State in 1993. The development of services in Causeway was planned to follow upon completion of the new Antrim hospital. From 1988 on, the Northern board appointed management consultants to look at the options. The then unit management and Coopers and Lybrand were involved, and, after considerable analysis, in December 1991 the Government approved and accepted the option to build a new hospital on a green-field site at Lodge road, Coleraine.
Shortly after that, in January 1992, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), announced the timetable for the project. It was envisaged that detailed planning and design would commence in 1994, with the major construction phase beginning in 1997 and the project to be completed by 2000. The speed with which the result of the option appraisal was translated into a programme of action with supporting funding reflected the Government's priority for, and commitment to, the project.
956
Over the past four years, the local population has seen that commitment demonstrated by physical investment. The proposed site was purchased at a cost of £0.85 million, and the first and essential stage of the development, the new area laboratory, was built on the site at a cost of £2.7 million. It became operational in 1994. Those investments, plus expenditure on landscaping and initial design fees, bring the total spend to date to £8.35 million. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that represents a considerable investment already in the light of pressures on public expenditure and the competing investment priorities.
At the same time, it is important to ensure that the original case for such major investment remains valid over the necessarily lengthy planning period. The acute sector has seen many changes in the past decade: productivity has increased significantly, and clinical practice has seen the expansion of day surgery. Hon. Members may recall that, in 1993, the Public Accounts Committee examined acute hospital provision in Northern Ireland. In the memorandum of reply to the Committee, my Department gave a commitment that all proposals for major investment would be kept under constant review and the underlying assumptions would be tested before any final decisions were taken.
As the Minister responsible for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, I am keen to endorse that commitment to ensure that what is built at Causeway and elsewhere is demonstrably what is needed, and no more than that. Therefore, at my request, earlier this year the health and social services executive asked the Causeway trust to review the case supporting the investment. In the light of the new regional strategy that I issued in July, I was particularly anxious to ensure that investment in a new hospital in Coleraine was consistent with the vision for acute hospital services set out in that strategy. The trust was therefore asked to ensure that the investment was acceptable and affordable to the principal purchaser, the Northern board.
I am pleased to record that the trust tackled that exercise in a rigorous and comprehensive manner, submitting a detailed review carried out by Coopers and Lybrand. The Causeway trust board has acted with commendable professionalism, urgency and diligence, and I take this opportunity to thank the chairman, the chief executive and board members for their co-operation throughout.
As a result, the executive identified a number of issues as requiring clarification by the trust and the board. The trust again dealt with them expeditiously and, as a result, the executive wrote to the trust on 5 November to inform it that the case for the investment had been revalidated. The executive advised the trust that, because of the additional costs involved with a redesign, it would not be economic—I confirm the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments—to seek a reduction in the project design.
As hon. Members are probably aware, the Government have reaffirmed the need for the new Causeway hospital to provide a locus for the acute services to the local population in the next century. The matter now rests with me in terms of a decision on the next stage of the project. Hon. Members will be aware of the pressures on public expenditure in general. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will soon announce decisions on public expenditure in Northern Ireland following the Chancellor's Budget statement. Hon. Members will

957
recognise the added pressures on public funds in Northern Ireland caused by the ending of the IRA ceasefire and the consequences of the summer's unrest.
The projected investment at Causeway—about £40 million—is significant. As Minister responsible for health and personal social services, I have a responsibility to ensure that such investment decisions are affordable and deserve the top priority with other pressures on my programme. I shall look at those issues once the Secretary of State has taken his decision, and I hope to make a statement before long.
To sum up, I believe that the Government have an impressive record of achievement already with the Causeway hospital project. The investment appraisal was approved quickly and a firm timetable was set out. Significant public funds have been made available and allowed preliminary investment on the site. We have ensured that the project remains tight, affordable and thus value for money for the taxpayer. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has largely been adhered to.
I recognise the local population's wish that we move on to the last major phase, but I ask hon. Members in the Chamber today for some forbearance over the present delay. I am likely to face difficult decisions over health spending next year, and decisions on Causeway must be part of that process, not taken outside it or ahead of it.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister assure the House that he will meet Causeway trust members and converse with them?
Mr. Moss: I have already given that assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I am more than happy to meet Causeway trust members. They have not asked for a meeting at this stage, but my door is always open to any trust board members who wish to talk to me.
In determining the way forward, I assure hon. Members that I hear and understand their concerns and those of their constituents. They can be sure that I shall give them due weight in the weeks ahead.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

NEW WRIT
For Barnsley, East, in the room of the hon. Terry Patchett, deceased.—[Mr. Dewar.]
NEW WRIT
  SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL (JIM CLARK MEMORIAL RALLY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Forsyth presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Scottish Borders Council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 November and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
  WESTERN ISLES COUNCIL (BERNERAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Forsyth presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Western Isles Council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 November and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investment from abroad has been attracted to Scotland in 1996 to date. [3459]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Record levels of investment have been attracted to Scotland in 1996.
    Mr. Dykes: What conclusion does my hon. Friend draw from those record levels, from the forthcoming announcement about the massive Hyundai project and from the general outlook for economic activity and tax matters?
    Mr. Kynoch: I think that my hon. Friend meant the recent and not the forthcoming announcement about Hyundai. The Hyundai project has already been announced, and it is excellent news for the Dunfermline area. There will be 2,000 new jobs and inward investment of £2.4 billion, which is the largest ever in Europe.
    My hon. Friend is right—companies come to Scotland because it is a competitive, low-tax country. The Opposition's proposals will be bad for inward investment: whether it be their spending pledges, which it is reckoned will increase taxation by 9p, the extra 3p that they intend to impose through a tartan tax, their proposals for a uniform business rate, which will be an extra tax on business, or their trade tax. We would not continue to attract the record levels of investment that we currently enjoy under the Government.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister seriously expect the House to believe that investors who come to Scotland do not know full well that Labour will win the next election, and that we shall establish a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers? If that is so, why are they not put off coming?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should give inward investors a little more credit than that. They possibly look a little further ahead. They do not believe that the Labour party will win the next general election: they believe that the Government, with their beneficial policies for business and for the economy in Scotland, will continue for many years to come.
    Sir Hector Monro: On the matter of incentives, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right to bring it home to the House and to Scotland that no one would want to come to a country where income tax was 9p higher, the tartan tax was 3p and where there was an unknown trade tax, all of which have been proposed by Labour? Those proposals must be the biggest disincentive for anyone to come to Scotland that there has ever been.
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend is right. Businesses are concerned about their competitiveness. All businesses must exist in a highly competitive marketplace, so
    960
    anything that makes them less competitive is bad. The social chapter, the minimum wage and the taxes to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which I mentioned earlier, would be bad for competitiveness, and thus bad for business, and would make inward investors think twice before they came to Scotland.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister has talked, not unreasonably, about the jobs that we already secure from inward investment. How does he feel about the threat of what might be described as predatory investment by Norwegian salmon farming companies in Scotland, which might buy up Scottish salmon farms? Those farms are made less viable by the currently plummeting price of salmon.
    I accept that the Minister's colleagues in the Scottish Office appear to have been batting for the salmon farming industry, but their view does not seem to be shared throughout Government. What prospect can be offered to the salmon farmers of a minimum import price in the near future, so that they can try to secure the home-based Scottish industry that is so vital?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Salmon farming is an important industry, particularly in the highlands and islands. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already discussing the matter with colleagues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)—the Minister responsible for fisheries—is going to Norway on Monday to discuss issues relating to the salmon farming industry.
    Mr. Gallie: What proportion of inward investment comes into Scotland through private finance initiatives? If the PFI relating to the new Scottish air traffic control centre were accepted, would that not increase inward investment further?
    Mr. Kynoch: As a firm advocate on behalf of both Ayrshire and Prestwick, my hon. Friend knows only too well that we have recently had significant success with Rohr's investment in Prestwick. We continue to hold discussions with British Aerospace in Prestwick, to ensure that it is given all the support that it needs to develop further. I know that my hon. Friend is also a firm advocate of the air traffic control centre at Prestwick, and I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Transport are well aware of his concerns.
    Mr. Hood: Is it not the case that, although the Government have 11 per cent. support in Scotland and trail Labour by over 20 per cent. in the United Kingdom, we still have an increase in inward investment? Could it be that those who have invested in Scotland consider their investment worth while because of the impending Labour Government and Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Kynoch: I must tell the hon. Gentleman to dream on. As I have said, there is no doubt that businesses that look to Europe and the United Kingdom for investment potential take into account the competitive circumstances that they can enjoy in Scotland. Clearly, anything that is likely to put that in jeopardy—such as higher taxation in Scotland, which is an inevitable consequence of the

    961
    Opposition's policies—would reduce competitiveness, and make businesses think twice before coming to Scotland.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister recognise that the prosperity of Dumfries and Galloway has a considerable impact on the Northern Ireland economy? Can he assure us that the region is given equal prominence as a suitable location for new inward investment in Scotland?
    Mr. Kynoch: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all areas are given equal attention by Locate in Scotland when it comes to inward investment. The decision where to locate is made by inward investors themselves, and they will inevitably consider their individual circumstances in judging where they will find the skilled labour force that they may be seeking, and where they will secure the best access to their marketplace or suppliers. Nevertheless, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no part of Scotland is not promoted by Locate in Scotland; the whole of Scotland is promoted, and long may that continue.

    A96 Fochabers Bypass
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make an announcement on the route of the A96 Fochabers bypass. [3460]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have been reading the hon. Lady's local newspaper, the Northern Scot. I see that she has been saying one or two rude things about the Government, and me in particular, with regard to this subject.
    Mr. Canavan: That is what she is paid for.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure that that is what she is paid for. She is paid to make representations on behalf of her constituents, which she does with considerable vigour. I am delighted to tell her that I shall be publishing a line of route for the bypass, and that I have now decided on a northern route for the town.
    Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision, but why has the Scottish Office taken some seven months to analyse the 700 responses from my constituents in connection with the Fochabers bypass? In the Scottish Office, there has been a bottleneck as tight as the traffic bottleneck in Fochabers. When will the work commence, because what is important is not just his decision but the commencement? After 20 years of campaigning for the bypass, why cannot we have it before the millennium?
    Mr. Forsyth: All that I can say to the hon. Lady is that officials' advice on the matter reached me this morning and I took the decision immediately so that I could give her the answer that no doubt accounts for the smile on her face.
    962
    On the construction of the project, the hon. Lady will know that officials will now have to work up design proposals, in consultation with the local community. We shall then have to publish the draft orders. I assure her that that will be done as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news of the Fochabers bypass is welcome and that it involves much public money? Does he recognise that the new hospital in Elgin, costing about £30 million—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is a good try, but the question is on the Fochabers bypass. I know Scotland rather better than the hon. Gentleman thinks that I do. Let us stay with the Fochabers bypass.
    Mr. Walker: My point is directly linked to the Fochabers bypass because the funds available for the bypass would not be available under Scottish National party proposals to renationalise the bus industry, Skye bridge and Railtrack. Does that not demonstrate the SNP's fairy tale economics?
    Mr. Forsyth: There is a link between Dr. Gray's hospital in Elgin and the bypass in so far as one leads to the other if one travels in the right direction. Both are projects for which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has campaigned. I have had the pleasure over the years of being able to announce approval for both projects because we are part of the United Kingdom and of the Union and therefore are able to afford that.

    Industry (Taxation)
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the business community about the effect of the level of taxation on Scottish industry. [3461]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Scottish business community is opposed to Labour's tartan tax and to its proposals to introduce a new trade tax by abolishing the uniform business rate.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals to allow local authorities to set the business rate would sink businesses without trace? They would be faced with enormous tax burdens. That would mean that jobs would be lost and businesses would go under. It would add to the burdens of Labour's proposals for a tartan tax increase of 3p in the pound and for an income tax increase of 9p in the pound. Does he agree that there is only one thing for businesses to do: stay with the Conservatives because we shall keep jobs for all?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend and commend to her the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", which was published by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary today and which shows that, in addition to the 9p on income tax, we would have to pay 3p in tartan tax and of course the trade tax, which would be levied as a result of abolition of the uniform business rate. The news of consolation from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is that the business rate increases would be limited to increases imposed by

    963
    Labour councils on the council tax payer, so, in Glasgow last year, business rates would have increased by 19 per cent. That is meant to be the consolation.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State not know that we all know his expertise in taxation? Will he tell the truth and say that, by placing VAT on fuel—a move to which he was a party, and for which he voted—the Government created the most devastating tax that Scotland has had to face since the infamous poll tax? How will he advise old-age pensioners on the issue of whether they should eat or heat?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question deals with the level of taxation on Scottish industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his question pertinent to it.
    Mr. McKelvey: You are absolutely right, Madam Speaker; I got carried away. Is the Secretary of State aware that the business rate paid by industry is only one of the injuries that it has received, and that, this winter, many businesses will lose staff who have to take time off because they have caught colds, because the VAT placed on their rates has created a cold climate in an even colder climate?
    Mr. Forsyth: That is the first time that the Government have been blamed for the cold climate. On the hon. Gentleman's concern about the effect of taxation on energy prices, he might like to have a word with his own Front Benchers about the windfall tax, which will do precisely what he is complaining about. As for his point on businesses and jobs, we are currently committing about half a billion pounds a year to maintaining the uniform business rate. Labour would throw away the rate and the competitive advantage that it provides for Scottish business, and fund the extravagant proposals made by Labour-controlled local government, which, in the current year, amount almost to an extra half a billion pounds of expenditure.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scottish industry should be extremely concerned about the prospect of a Scottish Parliament that would have unlimited powers to pass legislation on the level of business rates in Scotland? Does he agree that Scottish industry should, as a matter of the highest priority, endeavour to establish precisely the Labour party's policies on those matters by consulting the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend on where policy appears to be made, and on the need for concern about the effects of a tax-raising Parliament on the business community in Scotland. Not only would we have to pay a tartan tax, which would mean a 15 per cent. increase in the starting rate of income tax, but funding for our vital services would be put at risk, with all the consequences that that would have for Scottish industry. Furthermore, we would have increases in the business rate, which would destroy jobs, investment and prosperity in Scotland.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following the death of the General Franco, there was, in 1977, an exactly similar debate in Spain? Many Spanish
    964
    businesses doubted the wisdom of setting up the Catalan Parliament, and the "poncho peseta" phrase stood in for the "tartan tax". Is he aware that, if he were now to go to Barcelona, he would not find anyone against the Catalan Parliament, because it has been such a success politically, economically and culturally? Why does he think that Edinburgh would do less well?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. If he has made a study of the Catalan Parliament—which may explain why we do not see so much of him here—he will know that the Catalan Parliament is a net contributor to Spain, and that the Catalan economy contributes to the rest of Spain. The situation is the other way round in Scotland. That is why a Scottish Parliament risks our vital public services and why I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is still supporting the Constitutional Convention—whereas Lord Ewing, a former Labour Minister, at least had the dignity to resign in disgust at the shambles created by the hon. Member for Hamilton.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there were to be an independent Scotland or a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, Scottish industry would have a much higher burden of taxation, which would destroy jobs and inward investment, and the unemployment rate in Scotland would reach the level that it is in Spain—as recommended by the former leader of the Liberal party?
    Mr. Forsyth: If we had an independent Scotland, we would have a budget deficit problem of about £8.1 billion, and the future of Scottish industry would be an academic consideration.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is there not something of a brazen, brass-neck cheek about the inventor of the poll tax accusing anybody else on the subject of taxation? At the last election, the Secretary of State's party told Scotland, including Scottish industrialists, that it would reduce taxation year on year, but it has put up taxes 22 times—the equivalent of 7p on the standard rate of income tax—since then. His party has put VAT on heating. The cold and windy days in Scotland make that the Tory heating tax, and it is felt deeply by everybody. The Government cannot tell the truth about their own tax plans, so why should they expect anybody to believe the lies that they tell about Labour's tax plans?
    Mr. Forsyth: There was a moment's frisson when I saw the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) sitting in the hon. Gentleman's place and I thought that we might be in for some serious opposition. If the hon. Gentleman finds what we have to say about Labour's tax plans incredible, perhaps he would like to look at a document that has been produced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"—
    Mr. Hood: It is lies.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that it is lies, yet all of it is in the words of Opposition spokesmen.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many further education colleges in Scotland were allocated less money by him in this financial year than last year; and what factors underlay this decision. [3463]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Twenty-one, according to the formula.
    Mr. Worthington: I thought that 22 out of the 43 colleges had received less money this year than they did last year. Given that the Minister is budgeting for further education in Scotland to get less money next year, he is saying that, no matter how many colleges work well and attract more students, at least half of them will receive less money next year. What sense is there in such a Government policy?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is totally mistaken. No spending plans on how much will be allocated to further education have yet been decided. He stands up and says that there will be less money, but he does not have a clue how much money will be allocated next year. All I can say is that we have increased spending on further education colleges every year since incorporation in 1993.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend believe that, if we went down the route of taking away child benefit from those aged 16 to 18 who hope to go on to further education, it may mean that a number of people who might have stayed on to do A-levels at school will be dissuaded from doing so and will have to go out and find a job? There will therefore be fewer people going on to further education.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. The teenage tax proposed by the Labour party would hit Scots young people harder, since more young people stay on in school in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Labour's tax is uniquely designed to hit the young people and families of Scotland.
    Mrs. Fyfe: If the Minister is going to encourage his colleagues from southern constituencies to come to Scottish questions, could he first give them a crash course in Scottish education and other matters? How does he expect Scottish industry to thrive if there is not sufficient expenditure on further education courses?
    Mr. Robertson: Here we have yet another spending pledge from the Labour party. The hon. Lady seems to forget that we now have more students, studying more courses and getting more and better qualifications in our colleges under record funding from the Government. She would do the further education sector in Scotland a great service if she for once—just once—recognised that.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Do the Scottish further education colleges use the same formula as those in England and Wales? If they do not, do they get less than those in England and Wales, or more?
    Mr. Robertson: Further education colleges in Scotland are, of course, funded more than equivalent colleges in
    966
    England. The funding formula that we introduced last year, after full consultation with the colleges, is rewarding student activity and efficiency in colleges, which is surely the right way forward.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister recall that, during an exchange in Scottish questions just before the summer recess, he agreed that a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and myself concerning the funding problems that are being encountered by various colleges, such as Inverness and Thurso, in the north would be appropriate? Given that final decisions have not been taken, but those colleges are, like others—as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said—likely to have future funding problems, could we have that meeting before spending decisions are taken?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right. I offered a meeting to him and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). They have never got back to me to arrange that meeting. Of course I should be delighted to see them.
    Mrs. Liddell: Why does the Minister deny that, in 1995, the Government cut £1 1 million from their previous plans for funding further education in Scotland? Those cuts are not sustainable without redundancies and a diminution in the quality and range of teaching in Scottish further education colleges. Will he accept that his inability to protect Scottish education from the narrow dogma of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is undermining Scotland's economic future?
    Mr. Robertson: Only the hon. Lady could turn an 11 per cent. increase into a cut. Today of all days, she has suggested that the £233 million that we spent last year on further education is not enough. If she was being honest, she would have said how much she would spend. Would she spend another £50 million? Another £60 million? Another £70 million? For us to have an informed debate on further education funding, she must come up with her figures. I stand by what we have done. The hon. Lady is not in a position to respond to me during Question Time, but I give her notice that I shall write to her this afternoon. I hope that she will be able to write back, telling me how much more than our £233 million she would put in were she in my position.

    Expenditure and Taxation Levels
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on (a) expenditure and (b) taxation levels in Scotland. [3464]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have received a number of representations on expenditure and taxation levels in Scotland.
    Mr. Field: Is it not a fact that the cut in duty has brought a warm cheer to the Scotch whisky industry of Scotland—more than adequate compensation for a cool climate? Is it not also a fact that the Scottish people get an excellent bargain from the Government and the British taxpayer? They have more Members of Parliament per head and more expenditure per head than the people of

    967
    the Isle of Wight, yet they still mutter and moan into their sporrans. If we had that level of expenditure per head on the Isle of Wight, we would do an island fling.
    Mr. Forsyth: It is certainly true that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer broke with the tradition of 100 years in last year's Budget by cutting the duty on whisky for the first time. I hope that that splendid new tradition will be continued.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that Scotland enjoys considerably higher levels of public expenditure. I believe that that is a benefit for the Union. Despite what I am sometimes tempted to think when looking at Opposition Members, I also believe that it is a benefit for Scotland to have proportionately more Members of Parliament. In addition, we enjoy the office of Secretary of State—a Cabinet post that provides an important strong voice for Scotland. All those factors—the higher expenditure level, the representation at Westminster and the role of the Secretary of State—would be destroyed by Labour's plans for a tax-raising Parliament.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute crisis in local authorities caused by his Government's savage cuts? Next year, a catastrophic unemployment rate will escalate among local authority workers who provide the services for our people. There will be further cuts in home help and in all local authority services because of the Government. Local government services will once again be decimated.
    Madam Speaker: I hope that the Minister heard a question. I did not. Perhaps he would respond anyway.
    Mr. Forsyth: I prepared an answer earlier. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question was about the need for more local authority expenditure. I draw his attention to Glasgow. Last year, I gave Glasgow an additional £15 million in aggregated external finance and was criticised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). We now find that the council is unsure of how many social workers it employs in its social work department. It does not know the number. It has also overspent its budget by £3.5 million. Local authority expenditure in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher than in England. Grant support from central Government is 44 per cent. higher. The problem with local authorities in Scotland is that they are run by the Labour party, not that they are underfunded by the Government.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that half of the United Kingdom regional aid budget was spent in Scotland last year? If a Scottish Parliament were established, does he believe that that would continue?
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not believe that it would continue. It is hard enough maintaining that level of expenditure at present, given our voice in the Cabinet, our representation, and our ability to make our case where the decisions on funding would continue to be made even if we had a Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that that level would be sustained, nor do I believe that the additional advantage of the £3.8 billion of expenditure on public services in Scotland, which we enjoy, would continue.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that, even using his Department's methodology, and allowing
    968
    for Scotland's share of UK public borrowing and, of course, our share of our own natural resources, the fiscal surplus of Scotland in the past 17 years amounts to £80 billion, or £16,000 a head for every man, woman and child in the country? Can we arrange a seminar at which those facts could be explained to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), which is seeking independence I understand, so that they can answer this simple question: if they really think that Scotland is subsidised, why are they so anxious to hang on to us?
    Mr. Forsyth: Because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, we are Unionists and because we place the interests of our country before narrow nationalism, which would impoverish Scotland and damage our public services. The hon. Gentleman is on to an idea, however. We should have a seminar, and he and the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) could come along. We could study Scotland's budget and hear where the Opposition parties' priorities would lie. I would be happy to organise that—let us do it next week.
    Mr. McAllion: If expenditure levels are so much higher in Scotland, can the Secretary of State explain why the Government recently allocated £25 million to 13 towns in England to pay for the rough sleepers initiative when not a penny was allocated to any town or city in Scotland? That is an absolute disgrace, especially when we remember that surveys north and south of the border have shown that more people are sleeping rough in one small part of Glasgow city centre than in any of the 13 towns to which the Government handed those millions of pounds. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not fight in the Cabinet for Glasgow and other Scottish towns? If he is not prepared to fight, he should go.
    Mr. Forsyth: It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to compare housing expenditure in England and in Scotland. He should look at what is happening in his city and throughout Scotland—levels of expenditure on housing in Scotland are way above those in England. In so far as we have given—
    Mr. McAllion: I asked about the rough sleepers initiative.
    Mr. Forsyth: Well, we have put the money into creating homes for people to live in, and we have a record of improvement, refurbishment and creating new housing in Scotland to which no Labour Government could hold a candle.

    NHS (Scotland)
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of health boards to discuss the current situation of the NHS in Scotland. [3465]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I meet chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss matters of current interest.
    Mr. Ross: When the Minister of State next meets the chairmen of health boards, does he intend to have the

    969
    same discussion as Scottish Office officials recently had with the chief executives of trust hospitals? They impressed on them that they and their trusts should be concerned not about improving the health care of the people for whom they are responsible, but about implementing the promises in the last Tory manifesto up to the next general election.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are determined to improve the health standards of everyone in Scotland. That was our commitment, and we are going to do it. The chief subject that I discussed with the chairmen of health boards was the need to ensure that contingency arrangements are put in place to meet peaks in demand throughout the winter. It is perfectly proper for a Government to implement the manifesto commitments that they gave the people before a general election.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current situation in the health service in Scotland is affected substantially by the way in which councils have used health service funds for care in the community? The inspection in Tayside revealed that it was costing more than £200 per head per week to keep individuals in local authority homes and that that was causing bed blocking in the health service, costing many millions of pounds.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend raises a matter of great relevance. The inspection showed that the three authorities could achieve long-term savings totalling between £3 million and £6 million a year by making more use of independent sector care and that local authority homes did not offer better standards of care overall than the independent sector.
    Local authorities will in future be required to make available to the public and to councillors full information on the comparative cost to authorities of buying residential care and providing it in council-run homes. It cost the three authorities an average of £200 more per person per week to provide care for an older person in their homes than to buy care from the independent sector. Authorities should comply with the spirit of the directions issued by the Scottish Office, which would be greatly to the benefit of older people in Scotland.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister discuss with the chairmen the declining number of national health service beds in certain specialties? For example, is he aware that the Forth Valley health board is planning to reduce the number of NHS beds for frail elderly people to such an extent that, by 2000, there will be a national health service bed for less than 0.6 per cent. of the elderly population?
    On psychiatric services, will the Minister comment on the speech made last night by the respected judge, Lady Cosgrove, in which she said that there will be more suicides and murders unless we provide more national health service beds for psychiatric patients who are unable to cope in the community?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have visited Lochgreen hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency; the closure of that hospital will not take place until all the
    970
    other packages of care and accommodation are firmly in place. Two new developments in Falkirk, the Carrongrove and ANS nursing homes, are due to be completed by early 1997 and will provide an additional 168 places for the frail and elderly. Extensions to existing nursing homes in Bo'ness, Falkirk and Airth—
    Mr. Canavan: That is irrelevant: those are private nursing homes.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency; what happens on his doorstep is extremely relevant. There will be a further 67 places in Bo'ness, Falkirk and Airth, which is more new places than are required to accommodate the patients at Lochgreen hospital. We believe strongly that sufficient places must be made available to meet any peaks in demand, and I have no doubt that the NHS will give priority in future to the most pressing needs.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend prefer the Prime Minister's statement that he will increase national health spending above the rate of inflation year on year to the way in which the Opposition parties would plunder the funds to pay for their excesses, with more councillors and more of the things that they deem to be needed?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have given a commitment to increase national health service funding year on year in real terms. The official Opposition have failed to match that, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is very welcome to take the matter up with his Front-Bench colleagues, who have not given as strong a commitment to the national health service as we have.
    Mr. Chisholm: Have not the Government any sense of shame or constitutional propriety? They try to involve top civil servants and health service managers in promoting Tory party policy, and blame Labour local authorities for the bed blocking that Government policy has caused. The Government are behaving in a desperate and improper fashion, while waiting lists are at record levels, beds are being closed in spite of the looming winter bed crisis, £170 million has been spent each year on the bureaucracy of the internal market in Scotland and two-tierism is undermining the fundamental principles of the NHS—with the open support of the Minister as expressed earlier this month. Is it any wonder that people all over Scotland are saying, with sadness and anger, that enough is enough?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will not do for the hon. Gentleman to throw mud at the national health service. I have not the slightest doubt that it is the best in the world and we are determined that it should remain so. It now treats far more patients and has far shorter waiting lists. The inspectors operate independently; the facts that accompanied their very thorough report cannot be denied. If certain people do not like that, it is because they do not necessarily like having to be efficient, but efficiency is in the best interests of patient care.

    Non-custodial Penalties
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the introduction of more severe non-custodial penalties for convicted offenders.[3466]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have made it possible for community service orders to be longer and tougher, and we shall introduce electronic tagging, subject to the House approving the necessary legislation.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the latter point. Has he noted the inconsistency between Labour's Front-Bench Scottish spokesmen, who oppose these proposals, and its senior Front-Bench spokesmen south of the border, who purport to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have noticed a certain inconsistency, which I assume is due to the length of the line of communication from Islington. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should suggest that the Labour party wants to decide the bedtime of the nation's children, while the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) continues to oppose our proposals for electronic tagging, which is a useful way of dealing with football hooligans and others who cause disturbances on the streets of our towns and cities, especially on weekends and Friday evenings.
    Mr. Galbraith: Why does the Secretary of State always talk tough on crime but act so weakly on handgun control? Why has he left a glaring loophole through which people can retain ownership of .22 handguns? Does he not realise that the people of Scotland are outraged? That is unfinished business and the next Labour Government will legislate to abolish all handguns.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that there is going to be another Labour Government. If there is, they will presumably be better at getting their people to turn up than the Labour Opposition have been. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not want to mislead the House, but people will not be able to have handguns of any calibre outside registered gun clubs. I have made it absolutely clear that the toughest standards of security will be applied. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was among those who voted for the handgun ban, but only weeks before the vote he assured his constituents that Labour's policy was to allow people to continue to use handguns in clubs. It is impossible not to conclude that Labour has sought to exploit the issue for party political purposes. I think that that is disgraceful.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tougher sentences, whether custodial or non-custodial, are overwhelmingly popular with the law-abiding public and that the only people who are out of step on the issue are Opposition Members and a few misguided senior judges?
    Mr. Forsyth: I would never criticise the judges. It is for the judges to implement the law and to exercise their judgment in doing so in the courts; it is for Parliament to decide what the law should be. I observe only that on every measure, and perhaps most spectacularly on our
    972
    proposals to allow a right of appeal by the Crown against lenient sentences imposed by judges, the Opposition have voted against the interests of those who want the country to be seen to be tough on crime and to give the judges the powers that they need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that it is not only the toughness, but the certainty, of the sentence that acts as a deterrent? Is he, like me, concerned about delays between the date of an individual being charged by the police and the date on which he or she is to appear in court? Delay undermines the system's credibility if people who are known to have been caught and charged by the police are free to continue offending until they appear in court. Will the Secretary of State publish the figures for delays between charging and sentencing? Will he undertake to do something about those delays?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: there are unacceptable delays in the system. The legal aid system partly encourages delay, which is one reason why we want to reform it. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the importance of the punishment being administered as soon as possible and to say that people who have committed serious crimes should not be allowed to be released into the community. We have been concerned about bail. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about publishing the length of the delays. I got into some trouble with, and encountered opposition from, the hon. Gentleman's colleagues when I said that we would publish the sentencing practices of the sheriff courts—there are inexplicable and wide variations between them. The hon. Gentleman pinpoints a matter that causes considerable concern in communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
    Mr. George Robertson: We are prepared to consider and assist on non-custodial penalties in the Scottish legal system where they are appropriate. The Government's reputation and credibility on law and order was seriously damaged on Monday night when they politicised the handgun issue with a whipped vote in the House. Has the Secretary of State read in today's paper the comments of the dean of the Faculty of Advocates—Scotland's top QC—who says that, in the general fight against crime in Scotland, a total ban on handguns is appropriate and necessary? There is still time to reconsider the Firearms (Amendment) Bill before it becomes the law of the land. Is it not possible for the Government to try to rescue their reputation by allowing Conservative Members to follow their judgment and conscience rather than the diktat of the Whips Office?
    Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet reached a view on handguns that went way beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations and what Opposition parties were saying prior to knowing the Government's views. If I believed that a ban on handguns was the right policy for my party—I understand that that is the hon. Gentleman's position—I would do everything possible to ensure that there was a whipped vote to achieve that end. The hon. Gentleman could not even get his colleagues into the Lobby to support his party's policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's colleagues were in the Lobby supporting a policy that

    973
    went way beyond what the hon. Gentleman was prepared to describe as his policy until he knew what the Government were going to do.

    Health Service Reforms
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of Grampian health board to discuss health service reforms. [3467]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I meet all health board chairmen regularly to discuss all matters of current interest.
    Mr. Bruce: When the Minister next meets the chairman of Grampian health board, will he tell him from me that there is considerable welcome for one development in recent years: the growing role of community hospitals across Grampian region? The Minister will soon receive an application for the upgrading of Inverurie community hospital, whose GPs are total fundholders. As the Minister has already agreed to the upgrading of Peterhead and Turriff hospitals, which have total fundholding practices, will he give a positive response to the application from Inverurie, which is an important community hospital in the heart of my constituency?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The health board is currently considering proposals for investment in Inverurie hospital by the Grampian Health Care NHS trust. The board has not reached any final decisions on the purchasing requirements, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to its attention.
    Mr. Watson: When the Minister meets the Grampian health board chairman, will he discuss the problems associated with the private finance initiative which, as a result of health service reforms, is virtually the only source of capital projects in the health service in Scotland? Will he draw to the chairman's attention the difficulties associated with the Victoria infirmary in my constituency, where no funding short of that initiative is available? Will he clarify the attitude of the Scottish Office, which was previously so enthusiastic about the PFI, to the Treasury Committee's report on the initiative early this year? That report said that £3 billion of potential spending in Scotland was at risk owing to private companies using the PFI to boost their own profits rather than serving the public good. Will he give a commitment that the health service in Scotland will be funded on the basis of what people, not private companies, need?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That goes without saying, but I can say that the private finance initiative will greatly increase resources for the NHS and make public sector funds go much further. We are taking forward a wide range of different projects, including the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have had great success with some smaller projects. For example, Ferryfield in Edinburgh is a small project, but it saves the health board £100,000 a year, which is to the board's great benefit. We believe that, gradually, the sums will run into many millions of pounds—some
    974
    £70 million has already been committed to PFI projects—and that, before many years have passed, they will be hundreds of millions and eventually thousands of millions. However, the plans must first be put firmly in place and they must add up and balance. We must be certain that they will provide the required outcome. Every detail has to be thought through to its final conclusion.

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was total Government expenditure in Scotland as a percentage of the United Kingdom total in 1994–95; and what was Scotland's relative share. [3468]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Scotland had 8.8 per cent. of the UK population and received 10.2 per cent. of funding in 1994–95.
    Mr. Stephen: Do not those figures show that the people of Scotland are getting an extremely good deal from this Conservative Government? Is it not time that Scottish Opposition Members stopped their ritual moaning and groaning and acknowledged the enormous benefits that membership of the United Kingdom provides to their constituents?
    Mr. Forsyth: The people of England are getting a very good deal from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a substantial financial benefit to Scotland from the present constitutional arrangements which, with that substantial funding, all the Opposition parties would put in jeopardy. Given the size of the additional funding that we enjoy, tampering with it would put at risk many vulnerable groups who depend on health care and local government and other services.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that that budget includes £13 million of capital expenditure for the East Ayrshire hospital? Why has he not given that project the go-ahead? Why has he delayed it for two months so that a private finance initiative bid can be considered? Why has he continued to delay while that private finance initiative bid is allowed to be adjusted? Something fishy is going on—what is it?
    Mr. Forsyth: What is going on is that we are trying to provide a hospital for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I am sorry that he is so concerned that we are doing everything we can to bring in private finance so that more projects can go ahead in the health service in Scotland—on which we have a record of which we are proud.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of his biggest blocks of expenditure in Scotland is local authority expenditure? Why is local authority expenditure in Scotland so much greater than that in England or Wales?
    Mr. Forsyth: Because we have so many more Labour councils and because of the waste and profligacy in local government that has to be seen to be believed. The additional grant is necessary because those Labour councils are so bad at collecting council tax. Uncollected

    975
    council tax and community charge adds up to three quarters of a billion pounds—money that could be used for front-line services. It is money that Labour councils, in the main, have refused to collect.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State agree that Government expenditure in Scotland will inevitably have to increase if the salmon industry collapses, with the loss of thousands of jobs? Will he confirm that he favours a minimum import price, but that he has been overruled by the Treasury and the Chancellor, who prefer the purity of free market ideology to protecting Scotland's jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman usually accuses me of being the supporter of free market ideology. [Interruption.] This is a serious issue. The farmed salmon industry is vital to Scotland. Many thousands of jobs depend on it.
    The salmon price has fallen dramatically. One way to deal with the matter in the short term is to ask the Community to introduce a minimum import price. In the longer term, we need to tackle the root of the problem—Norwegian dumping into the market. The Commission is at present investigating those matters with a view to reporting in early spring.
    I know the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the matter. I am in discussion with my colleagues about it. I will continue that discussion in the hope of being as supportive as I can to the industry, which is vital to the highlands and to the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the islands.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finances. [3469]
    Mr. Kynoch: The next meeting is scheduled for 17 January.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister agree that the present formula for distributing revenue support grant takes little or no account of the costs, services and needs associated with business communities in city areas? Is he aware that Glasgow city council collects slightly more than £200 million per annum in non-domestic rates but receives slightly more than £150 million in return—a loss of £50 million per annum to the city? What does the Minister intend to do about such blatant discrimination against the major cities in Scotland?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is only too well aware that the distribution of funds to local authorities in Scotland is discussed at the distribution committee of the Scottish Office and COSLA. The formulae used for that distribution have been in place since 1985, and are discussed and fine tuned each year. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks the City of Glasgow why it still has not collected about £200 million of community charge and council tax. If it did, that might solve its problems more quickly.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is it not the case that the Government already know what next year's local
    976
    government funding will be? Is the Minister not aware of the grave situation that was created for local government last year, which placed very many services in danger and put cultural activities at risk? Will the Minister give an assurance that nothing like that will happen this year, that the settlement will not be used for electioneering purposes and that local government will not be asked to bear the cost of cuts designed to assist the Government's other tax strategies?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, last year, an increase of about 3.6 per cent. was given to local authorities throughout Scotland from central taxation. That enabled most authorities to increase their budget by a minimum of 3 per cent. over the previous year; some were able to increase it by 4 per cent.
    The hon. Gentleman should address his comments to Labour councillors on his local council and ensure that they obtain the best value for money for their council tax payers so that more services are provided at better value. At present, they do not even know how many people they employ, as was witnessed by the joint staffing watch survey carried out jointly with COSLA. I believe that we shall continue to treat local authorities fairly throughout Scotland, provided that they act responsibly on behalf of taxpayers.

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current total Government expenditure per capita in Scotland. [3470]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Identifiable expenditure per head was £4,505 in Scotland—about 25 per cent. higher than in England.
    Mr. Evans: If that lot over there get their way on devolution, will us English stop subsidising their way of life? When the tartan tax takes over, will we police Hadrian's wall to stop the marauding Scots coming into England, which will by then be a tax haven—so they will all want to come here? Furthermore, if we have devolution, can my right hon. Friend assure me that Scottish Members of Parliament will have no authority in this House at all?
    Mr. Forsyth: I think that is a fair summary of the arguments against the Labour party's case for a tax-raising Parliament. My hon. Friend put it very eloquently.
    Mr. McFall: Can the Secretary of State explain why a formula that is widely seen to be fair by all United Kingdom parties should now be seen as unfair in the context of a Scottish Parliament? In a country where, after 17 years of Conservative rule, one in five households have no one in work, as many as 1 million elderly people are paying the penalty of the Tory VAT increases on heating, and thousands of young people are leaving school for a no-hope jobless future, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is nothing less than shameful that a politically vacuous, illiterate and ignorant English Back Bencher should suggest that we in Scotland cannot manage our expenditure with a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Forsyth: I dare say my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has done more for wealth

    977
    creation than has the hon. Gentleman. If he is puzzled as to why the formula would no longer continue, the answer is that he cannot expect this House to continue to vote 25 per cent. more money for the Scots than for hon. Members' own constituents in England if the hon. Gentleman and his party have their way and there is a tax-raising Parliament in
    978
    Scotland. It is because the hon. Gentleman and his party wish to gerrymander our constitution that they place that funding at risk. The people who would suffer would not be the hon. Gentleman and his cronies in the Labour party; it would be the honourable, ordinary people of Scotland who would find their services jeopardised.

Zaire
3.30 pm
Dr. John Reid(by private notice): To ask the Minister of State for the Armed Forces if he will make a statement on the plans for the deployment of British forces to Zaire.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The House will recall the statement made last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. At that time, fighting in eastern Zaire was reported to have intensified. There were estimates that hundreds of thousands of refugees were at risk, and that the death toll was likely to escalate rapidly.
In the face of a potential humanitarian tragedy, my right hon. Friend made it plain that the United Kingdom was ready to play its part in the temporary multinational force for which United Nations Security Council resolution 1078 had called. But he also emphasised the absolute necessity to establish clear objectives for any force dispatched to the region, and announced that we had authorised a reconnaissance party led by Brigadier Jonathan Thomson, the chief of joint rapid deployment force operations, to travel to Zaire to establish in greater detail what the situation was on the ground. The House will wish to be aware that the party was vastly assisted by Her Majesty's ambassador to Rwanda, Miss Kay Oliver, and her team, who have done a remarkable job in the past few days and deserve great credit.
The recce party made its report yesterday. It confirmed that the return of refugees from north Kivu to Rwanda was largely complete and that the situation in the area around Goma had therefore eased substantially.
It is possible that last week's decision to mount a multinational force was instrumental in persuading the Hutu militia to flee and the refugees to return home. By contrast, the position in the area to the south of Lake Kivu remains confused and complex. The precise whereabouts and condition of a large number of refugees are unclear. There remains a critical shortage of information on what is happening in the south Kivu region, which makes it extremely difficult for military planners and humanitarian agencies alike to assess what action is needed; although it is clear in any event that humanitarian support will be needed in Rwanda as refugees return to their homes.
The House should know that my right hon. Friend has authorised the deployment of a Canberra photo-reconnaissance aircraft with its attendant support to the area, to assist in establishing a clearer picture. Until we have more detailed information, we shall be in no position to take sensible decisions on how best to help.
In the mean time, we are continuing to plan a range of options with our potential partners in a multinational force. We also continue to keep in close touch with the humanitarian agencies and we are monitoring the situation closely as it develops. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has announced this afternoon that a further £10 million will be provided to help to meet needs in Rwanda and the great lakes region. That brings our total contribution for Rwanda and its refugees to more than £18 million in 1996.
The option of deploying a multinational force to south Kivu remains open. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear last week that the Government were ready to take prompt and effective action to help to overcome the crisis. That remains the case.
980
In the light of the changed circumstances, we are urgently assessing the direction of events and consulting our partners further before final decisions are taken. The House will, I know, understand and agree, and will wish to be reassured that we are making absolutely certain that any contribution, whether military, political or in the form of aid, properly meets the needs of the people in the region.
Dr. Reid: I thank the Minister and welcome the additional £10 million that has been made available. Like the entire House, I welcome the fact that hundreds of thousands of refugees have now reached comparative, albeit temporary, safety.
We recognise the fluidity of the situation. The nature of the deployment of any British troops may have to be subject to revision in the light of the professional evaluation of the reconnaissance party.
We welcome the Government's efforts to enhance our information-gathering capability by sending a Canberra aircraft to assess the situation.
When does the Minister expect to be able to give a detailed response to the findings of the recce party? Does he recognise that hundreds of thousands of refugees are still stranded in eastern Zaire and that it is not clear what the Hutu militias are planning—possibly a regrouping and reinforcement of their positions?
Can the Minister confirm reports that members of the British team sent to eastern Zaire were unable to visit parts of the area that they wished to see because they were barred by the Hutu militia, and that they had to make observations instead from the high ground in Rwanda? Does he accept that there remain formidable problems of logistics and organisation, even for the refugees who have reached comparative safety, and that those are problems for which military skills and logistical operations may be of great assistance?
Although we appreciate that the situation is fluid, I am sure that the House would be grateful if the Minister told us his current thinking about the number of troops to be sent. In that context, what are the implications for Britain of America's announcement that it is to send fewer than 1,000 support troops? What communications has he had with our western allies in assessing the situation?
Finally, will the Minister accept the Opposition's assurance that we remain supportive in principle, should the decision be taken to deploy our troops in the light of the reconnaissance report? We ask, however, for an assurance that any final decision will be subject to a fuller statement from the Minister, so that the House can examine the details of the mission objectives, command structures and any rules of engagement that might be appropriate.
Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support throughout.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the reconnaissance party. I can confirm that members of the reconnaissance party were well received wherever they went and that they were able to make assessments on the ground and see all that they needed to see. They did not have any trouble of the kind that the hon. Gentleman feared. They could see from where they were all that they needed to see. They have made a full and detailed report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to Ministers and the chiefs.

981
The hon. Gentleman's point about logistics and the difficulty of delivering aid is well taken. Clearly, if a force of any size were deployed under the present circumstances, one of the principal requirements would be the ability to deliver aid and to resolve the associated logistical problems.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our current thinking on the number of troops. That depends on our assessment of the situation and our absolute requirement to clarify the situation on the ground, but it seems that the problem is not as serious as we originally thought. The House will realise that although the position in the north is considerably eased, there is no such assurance about conditions in the south. We are anxiously seeking information about those refugees.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that the liaison between our western allies and the United States is extremely close and on-going. A team from our permanent joint headquarters will deploy to Stuttgart, to EUCOM, for the planning meeting that starts tomorrow, and I hope that we shall, towards the end of the week, have a clearer idea of the situation on the ground and of the configuration of forces that we shall need. I reassure the House, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did last week, that there will be no question of going without a clear mission, proper command and control and everything else about which the House expressed concern.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Most people will acknowledge that the Ministry of Defence has responded to a very complex and confused situation in eastern Zaire and Rwanda with commendable clarity and resolve, unlike some other countries. It is just as well that our new joint rapid deployment force was operational and not committed elsewhere.
We also applaud the readiness with which 10 African states have come forward to volunteer troops to a combined joint task force. Should not we be giving African countries and, perhaps, countries in other continents, help in setting up planning cells and command structures, so that if such emergencies arise again, as they are bound to do, at least they will be able to help themselves rather than being forced to rely on outside help, no matter how ready other countries are to assist?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the House will agree that Her Majesty's Government responded as one would expect them to in the circumstances of impending potential humanitarian catastrophe, by taking steps to ensure that Britain would be able to make its rightful contribution. It is lucky that the JRDF was not deployed elsewhere. It has also turned out to be an extraordinary stroke of good fortune that it was up and configured. The new permanent joint headquarters has played a notable role in the planning of the operation.
I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said about African countries and peacekeeping operations. As he knows, Britain has had a number of short-term training teams deployed in Africa over time. They have played a notable role. Indeed, Britain played a great role in the conference on peacekeeping in Africa, in Zimbabwe, last year. I agree that African countries need to be able to play a bigger part in resolving their own difficulties, which would be greatly to their advantage.
Sir David Steel: May I, on behalf of my colleagues, give a wholehearted
982
welcome to the Minister's statement? I remind him that two years ago I visited British troops who were in Kigali as part of the UN force, and General Dalliaire, who was in charge of the UN operation—indeed everybody—said that if only the international community had been able to send troops three months earlier, we might have been able to have a police operation, which would have prevented the exodus of refugees into Zaire.
Learning from that experience, will the Minister emphasise the part of his statement where he talked about liaising with humanitarian agencies? Does he also recognise that we may never get a perfect military plan, because if we wait for that, we shall wait for ever? Will he therefore respond to the cries for help if a police operation needs to be mounted?
Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is clearly no point sitting around just waiting for things to happen, because there is no such thing as the perfect military plan. There will always be a degree of risk. I accept, as will everyone in the Ministry of Defence, what the right hon. Gentleman said. Timing is extremely important. There are lessons that we learn after each deployment, and the one raised by the right hon. Gentleman is one such.
However, it is plain that it would be unwise to send troops into a situation such as that which appears to be developing in Zaire and elsewhere without a clear exposition of exactly where the problem is. A week ago, we were looking at sending troops on a basis that it now seems will not be required. It is important that we assess properly the scale and shape of what we need, and then we shall be ready to go at short notice. Indeed, I can confirm to the House that all the troops placed on a shorter notice to move by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier in the week remain on that short notice.
Mr. James Couchman: This time last week, a delegation from the House was at the United Nations and we were able to watch the informal meeting of permanent representatives of the Security Council discuss the matter in some depth. I pay tribute to our permanent representative, Sir John Weston, who played a leading part in the resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council last week.
Everyone is tremendously relieved that it has not proved necessary to send the sort of force envisaged in the resolution and that many refugees have now returned to Rwanda. Does my hon. Friend foresee the possibility of sending troops to Rwanda—obviously with that country's blessing—to assist with humanitarian and reconstruction work? I think particularly of the Royal Engineers which, as my hon. Friend knows, has a major establishment in my constituency.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am glad that he was at the United Nations when those matters were discussed. He will know—as should the House—of the formidable job done by Sir John Weston and his team on our behalf at the United Nations. My hon. Friend is right: if it came to providing purely humanitarian assistance in Rwanda, the Royal Engineers might play an important role, as could the logisticians. I pay tribute to the Royal Engineers, whose home base is in my hon.

983
Friend's constituency. They are deployed throughout the world and are extremely overworked. I do not know where we would be without them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Canadians offered to take the lead in the mission, but do they remain as enthusiastic as they were? What has President Bizimungu of Rwanda said to the British Government or to Ambassador Kay Oliver? Would he welcome such forces?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the interest that he has shown in the matter and for the courteous way in which he has kept in touch with my office. He is right to ask whether troops would be welcome, as plainly we will not invade the place. We are talking about a humanitarian operation and it is important that British and multinational troops are welcomed wherever they go, with a view to carrying out the mission for which they were sent.
The hon. Gentleman knows that both the Americans and the Canadians are now reassessing—as we are—the need for the kind of deployment that we considered before the vast exodus took place from the north. That plainly changes the situation. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to move without careful thought and assessment of the situation on the ground, so that we go in, first, welcome and, secondly, able and configured to do the job required to save lives. We must not get caught in some awful mix-up.
Mr. John Townend: I welcome my hon. Friend's undertaking that we will not deploy troops without the approval of the Governments concerned. That is a great relief.
Does my hon. Friend accept that the Secretary of State's statement to the House last week was based on incorrect information? Clearly, 20,000 refugees were not dying every day or every week—many of them would have been left in the camps if that were the case. Will he assure the House that in future he will take less notice of scare stories circulated in the media, by aid agencies or by others with a vested interest?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend should recall the exact remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said that refugees in the northern part of the country could be the victims of a potential humanitarian catastrophe. Her Majesty's Government received that information not just from the non-governmental organisations but from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The information was substantiated by our sources and it was clear then that the British Government and other Governments of the civilised world should prepare to take part in a relief operation. It would be a shameful thing for Britain, among all countries, even to contemplate standing apart if something terrible happened.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Unlike the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that the British Government are willing to take part in another United Nations-sponsored humanitarian operation. I fear that such a scenario will occur time and again in this
984
increasingly unstable world. Is the Minister aware that our scaled-down armed forces are already seriously overstretched, with commitments in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere? Is it not the responsibility of the Government and of the House to give our armed forces sufficient resources and manpower for the task that we want them to undertake?
Mr. Soames: I am probably more aware than anyone in the House of how busy our armed forces are, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment, although it was rather intemperately expressed. I know that his heart is in the right place: he is a keen member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I assure him that whatever such an operation may have required, and however busy our forces may have been—they are busy at present—that would not have prevented us from conducting the proposed operation.
An overstretch undoubtedly exists, but it was not a factor in this operation. The joint rapid deployment force was created to hold troops available for such operations, so that they could go rapidly wherever we need them, either to defend our interests or to help other people.
Mr. Richard Alexander: The House will welcome the increased aid for refugee women and children. What assurance can my hon. Friend give us that that aid will not be used to feed warring fighters, whose side may not be doing so well? Is there not evidence from the pictures that we have seen that many of the young men among the refugees are former fighters who, refreshed by overseas aid, can carry on fighting at the next opportunity?
Mr. Soames: It is difficult to discriminate in the television pictures between one person and another as they trudge from point A to point B. I am sure that some of the guilty are among those people. That does not alter the fact that we are beholden to help where we can. I hope that the House will agree that we should add this new money to the already substantial help that we are giving to Rwanda. Of the new £10 million commitment, £1.25 million has already been allocated to the World Food Programme. the International Committee of the Red Cross and the British non-governmental organisations to address immediate needs in eastern Zaire and Rwanda.
However critical people are of overseas aid—there are legitimate arguments for and against—the House should recognise that the Overseas Development Administration in this country has a golden and shining record. Our aid is outstandingly well spent in every respect.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am sure that the Minister spoke for the whole House when he said that our first priority was to deliver humanitarian aid to refugees, to help them to return home. He referred to the difficulties of sending troops to Zaire. I am sure that he will agree that the humanitarian aid agencies are heroically delivering services under difficult circumstances. Until the Minister is able to make a statement on the deployment of troops, what practical assistance can the Government offer those agencies, to ensure that the aid gets through?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those words, and I join him in his warm tribute to the humanitarian agencies. They do so much all over the

985
world, not just in times of crisis when they are on everyone's television screens, but every day when they help people in desperate circumstances.
Until we have people on the ground, the Government are plainly not able to assist in dispatching aid. I am sure that aid agencies will warmly welcome the announcement that I made this afternoon and which my noble Friend Baroness Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, made on additional aid to humanitarian agencies.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his judicious and reassuring statement. He has forgotten none of the lessons of his formative military years, that time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted. Can he reassure the House that there will be no diminution of the Royal Air Force's aerial reconnaissance capability, which is so important in this emergency, because it enables us to assess need over huge areas of ground and extremities of range? On the logistics of the emergency, can he tell us whether the Government comprehend the RAF's requirement for a heavy lift capability, such as the C17 aircraft, which can carry huge amounts of kit at rapid speeds to any emergency hot spot around the globe?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right about the age-old adage in volume 1 of "Staff Duties in the Field", which tells us that time spent on reconnaissance is never wasted: that is critical.
I can confirm that deployment of the Canberra PR9 will not affect the Royal Air Force's reconnaissance efforts elsewhere. As for heavy lift, my hon. Friend is right in saying that it remains an important question for the joint rapid deployment force. I shall draw what he has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will continue to raise that serious and important issue.
Mr. Mike Gapes: The Minister referred to the situation around the south of Lake Kivu. Will he confirm that there are refugees there who have come from Burundi? Will he also confirm that the crisis has led to the displacement of many thousands of Zaireans? Although it is welcome that hundreds of thousands of people have returned to Rwanda, the geography and the complexities are such that there is still a crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of people. The problem has not been solved yet.
Will the Minister also confirm that some of the £10 million of aid that has been announced will be used to assist long-term reconstruction in Rwanda, allowing the possibility of stability, democracy and respect for human rights?
Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the crisis is not over yet. He is right to point out that, around Lake Kivu and in the south, there remain possibly a vast number of refugees of whose exact whereabouts and condition we know little. We need to establish those facts. The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that there are people from Burundi there: that complicates the matter further.
As for the £10 million of aid money, and the hon. Gentleman's desire for it to be deployed in reconstruction, that is a matter for my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. I agree, however, that
986
reconstruction, and stability for the people of Rwanda, will be a great prize for those people, and—we hope—will prevent further trouble of this kind.
Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence are to be congratulated on the way in which they have handled the problem. It is true that the ability of fixed-wing aircraft to be deployed for intelligence gathering and reconnaissance is a vital part of any operation; it is also true that command and control is a vital part of any operation. Many will advise my hon. Friend to encourage African nations to become much more involved, and we welcome their involvement, but what we must never do is commit United Kingdom troops when we are not satisfied that command and control has the experience and expertise to do the job properly.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of photo-reconnaissance. The Canberra PR9 in particular has proved extraordinarily valuable, and has served us for many years. I also endorse his views on command and control. Any follow-on force along the lines that we originally considered would, we hope, largely consist of a number of African nations that have themselves volunteered to take part. We would never involve our own forces—even if we take the point made by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) about waiting until it is too late—unless we were absolutely satisfied about command and control.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I fully support what is now being proposed in regard to humanitarian assistance, but is there not a moral in all this for future defence and foreign policy? On 15 January, in two replies to questions from me, the Minister said that, between 1991 and 1995, this country had provided military assistance for the armies of Rwanda and Zaire. Does that not demonstrate that we should be rather more constrained in choosing the regimes that we provide with training and, in particular, arms?
Mr. Soames: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused, in his penetrating questioning of me, as between United Nations assistance in Rwanda and assistance elsewhere, but on the more general point, clearly, I agree with him. We are extremely careful and cautious about where we provide military training. British military training teams in South Africa and elsewhere have done a great deal. The House will wish to pay tribute to the work, for example, of the British military training team in South Africa. The team has done so much to help to assimilate all parts of the South African army. On the more general point outside Zaire and Rwanda, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. We need to be extraordinarily cautious, and we are.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the fact that British forces had no operational experience in any of those three countries during colonial times or

987
since, can we nevertheless be wary of taking advice from the French, who have such experience, but who have such a colourful and partisan record in those countries?
Mr. Soames: I know that my hon. Friend is seeking to be helpful, but British forces have been engaged in both Rwanda and Angola within the past 18 months.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is the Government's estimate of the total number of Hutu refugees still in Zaire? What are the Government going to do about a British arms trading company that supplied arms to the region, which was clearly a major component in the strife that is taking place and which may have been in default of UK legislation?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman asked me first about the number of Hutus remaining. The answer is that we simply do not know. That is one of the reasons why we need to have further and better particulars before we become more heavily engaged.
As to the second point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been extremely concerned to learn of allegations that UK companies might have been involved in the supply of arms to Rwandan extremists. The Government have well-established and strict procedures to ensure that any UK arms exports are both responsible and legitimate. There is no allegation that the arms have been exported from the UK, but Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is urgently investigating the matter to establish whether any offence has been committed under UK law.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: May I return to the point that I put to the Secretary of State for Defence last Thursday, which follows on from the question that the Minister has just answered? Does he agree that the long-term peace and stability of a region depends on getting arms out of the hands of militias, and that, both in the UK and internationally, further work is needed to identify the sources of those arms and to ensure that those sources are stopped off?
Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reasons for the instability in the region go much more widely than the narrow point that he raised. Plainly, as I said, we have strict rules on arms sales. As to the general and wider point of arms sales to irresponsible countries, plainly, everyone would share the hon. Gentleman's view that that is undesirable. He needs to consider more points than just arms sales as the reason for instability between Zaire and Rwanda.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw to your attention the front page and page 2 of The Guardian today, where there appears a report that purports to record what has taken place in the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? The best way of handling this may be for the Select Committees concerned to deal with it in the usual way and undertake a leak inquiry. None the less, the matter is obviously of considerable importance and, although fortunately there have been few leaks from Select Committees recently, any leak casts into doubt the integrity of the Select Committee system, especially perhaps in relation to that particular Select Committee. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I should be grateful if you will consider whether other action might appropriately be taken.
Madam Speaker: If there has been a leak, I deprecate it most strongly. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware—he has made the point himself—it is, first, for the Committee itself to look into the matter when there appears to have been unauthorised publication of its proceedings. Once the facts are established, the Committee may make proposals for further action. I am sure that, as a result of his point of order, the Committee will look into the matter, but I shall take considerable interest in its activities on it.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the extraordinary events in Committee Room 10 this morning. at the meeting of European Standing Committee B, to discuss documents relating to economic and monetary union? Are you aware, that Committee Room 10, which is one of our largest rooms, was so crowded that not all hon. Members who wanted to participate in the proceedings could find seats? More importantly, are you aware that the Government were defeated on their motion, and that the Committee refused even to take note of the documents before it, because hon. Members felt that those issues warranted a full debate in the Chamber?
Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the Government could, were they so unwise, simply table a motion so that the House has to decide the issue on a forthwith basis, and without any further debate? Such action would clearly be against the wishes of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, however, as evidenced by the support for the all-party Select Committee's motion, which is on the Order Paper.
Madam Speaker, you may recall that, when I raised similar issues in the past, the Leader of the House said that he accepted that opportunities should be provided for proper parliamentary debate on those issues. Therefore, I wish to ask you what you might be able to do to protect the rights of hon. Members, when the Government are so obviously trying to stifle debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Wait just a moment. There is obviously strong feeling in the House about this matter. I am certainly not going to take all the points of order—

989
because they will become speeches—but I want the flavour of the House on this matter. Therefore, I shall take one or two points of order, so that I am quite aware of what has happened.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment; I select the hon. Members here. Mr. Wilshire.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to ask you specifically about Standing Order No. 102, and I apologise for giving you only brief notice about this point earlier. The purpose of today's meeting, as I understood it, was to enable the Government to say at the European summit in December, that scrutiny had taken place of the three documents on economic and monetary union.
There were many points of order, and I specifically asked a formal question of the Chairman about the issue of scrutiny. I asked, "Does the fact that the Government have moved the motion equal scrutiny, and what will be the position if this Committee decides not even to take note?" The Chairman ruled that simply moving the motion did not amount to scrutiny. At 1 o'clock, the Committee voted not to take note.
By 2 o'clock, the Government were claiming that the morning's farcical proceedings indeed amounted to scrutiny. Therefore, may we have your ruling on whether scrutiny has taken place, and on whether the House has concluded this business—or does it still hang in the air?
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Hood, Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I appeal to you to protect the integrity of the House—after the events of the past few days, and of today in Standing Committee B—and of my Select Committee? We do not recommend lightly that debates should take place on the Floor of the House. We did so, however, because of the importance of those three very important documents and our belief that the Standing Committee—with no disrespect to it—could not do justice to the necessary debate. We thought that it was necessary that discussion should take place in the House, and that is what we recommended. It was a unanimous decision of the Committee. I wrote to the Leader of the House on 6 November expressing our strong views, and he replied saying that, unfortunately, he could not agree to our wishes. A motion on the Order Paper, which was signed unanimously by members of the Committee, is now supported by more than 150 Members.
Will the Leader of the House give notice in his business statement tomorrow of when a motion will be dealt with, so that the Government cannot just slip it in at short notice late at night? Proper notice should be given, so that the House has a chance to retrieve its integrity.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful if you could confirm that the situation is not unprecedented, although it would be undesirable to repeat it too often. Perhaps one of the ways forward would be to reach agreement that, at least in the next Parliament if not from now on, matters
990
will be taken on the Floor of the House when the Select Committee recommends it. Would it not be right to put it on record that the Leader of the House has written to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee saying that he intends that the euro, EMU and stability will be debated on the Floor of the House before the Dublin summit?
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Is it not a fact that the integrity of the House will not be maintained even if the Government move a motion on the Order Paper and we know the date on which they will, because it will be taken forthwith and there will be no debate? May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Madam Speaker, whether he can make a business statement on when that motion will be tabled? Do you not feel that the House should consider referring the procedure of taking such matters forthwith to the Select Committee on Procedure? Some time ago, before the Standing Orders were changed, such matters were taken after debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I am taking no further points of order on that subject. I think that I have the flavour of the House on the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No. I must clear this matter up first.
What happened in European Standing Committee B this morning has, I understand, been reported to the House by the Chairman, as laid down in Standing Order No. 102(8). Further proceedings may follow in the House in accordance with the next paragraph of the Standing Order. I do not think that it is necessary or proper for me to say anything else at this stage. It is a matter for the Government to resolve. The Leader of the House will be before us tomorrow to answer business questions— [Interruption.] Order. I shall make further inquiries. I am concerned about maintaining the integrity of the House's procedures.
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Winnick: Yes. I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you can give us guidance—or certainly give me guidance—over the procedure for statements if information is received later than noon. I ask that question because it now appears that the Cabinet Secretary has protested in the strongest possible way over the manner in which his name and the names of Treasury civil servants have been used purely and simply for party political propaganda. In such circumstances, could a statement be made today?
The distinction between the Government, as such, and party political propaganda is very important. Since the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, has made the strongest possible protest to Treasury Ministers, I believe

991
that it is necessary for the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to explain to the House what has happened and why the lies that are being told about the Opposition have been put out and associated with the name of the Cabinet Secretary.
Madam Speaker: Of course, it is perfectly in order for any Minister to make a statement late in the day. Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I have not been informed that a statement is forthcoming.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On precisely the same matter, Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Cabinet Secretary is extremely angry—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have answered the point of order that was put to me. There were two questions: is it possible for a statement to be made later today, and will one be made? It is possible, but I have not been informed by a Minister that a statement is forthcoming. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard the feelings of the two hon. Members who have raised points of order on that issue.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order, but I have only just had a fax through about it. You will be aware of the severe weather affecting some parts of these islands. Several villages in my constituency have lost their electricity since yesterday morning, including 200 people in the village of Deiniolen, where several elderly people may be severely affected.
The question has arisen whether Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have responsibility for such matters. Can you confirm that it would be in order for the President of the Board of Trade or one of his Ministers to come to the House, in view of the fact that it is a privatised electricity company that is now unable to maintain electricity supplies?
Madam Speaker: It is up to a Minister to determine whether he wishes to come and make such a statement. Of course I am aware of the severe weather in many parts of this country, not only in Wales but in Scotland. No doubt that is the subject of the next point of order to come my way.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Not exactly, Madam Speaker. It is a different point of order. As you know, we are all grateful for the judicious and fair way in which you allocate supplementary questions, but sometimes events can occur that are outwith your immediate discretion. At Scottish questions today, seven of the first 12 questions taken were from hon. Members from English constituencies. That pattern has been repeated over a number of Scottish Question Times.
May I ask you to consider three facts? First, many of those hon. Members left immediately after asking their questions, showing that their interest in Scottish affairs was perhaps not too profound. Secondly, there has been a suggestion that their interest is not entirely spontaneous,
992
but that they are being orchestrated by the Government Whips' office. Thirdly, the way in which many expressions were made about Scotland causes offence north of the border and moved the normally mild-mannered hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to something of an outburst. May I ask you to consider whether the procedures of the House are being abused? Is there any intervention that you can make to prevent Scottish questions from degenerating further?
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I recall calling two hon. Members from his party during Scottish questions today. It is good to get these things on the record. Out of the total of 46 supplementary questions, 34 were from Scottish Members. I keep a running total as we go through Scottish questions. I should also like to put on record the fact that the Members of the official Opposition tabled 27 questions. It would have been possible for them to table 40, but only 27 were tabled. I like to keep the House informed of the record that I keep up to date.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point arises from your ruling on the Government Whips having listened to the representations in the House about the need for a statement on Sir Robin Butler's refutation of the suggestion that he was involved in assisting the Government politically.
Surely the problem is that the House is impotent to call to account the arbitrary behaviour of Government spokespersons. What measures are at our disposal in this place to stop the arrogance of a Government who behave in that way towards Sir Robin Butler and other civil servants? Is there nothing in our armoury that will enable us to make them make a statement this afternoon?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is very wise in the use of our Standing Orders and all our procedures. He needs no guidance from me. There is an Order Paper. He can use Question Time, early-day motions, ten-minute Bills or Adjournment debates. There are so many ways in which he might raise such matters.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing no further points of order about that. There is important business before the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is an important matter.
Madam Speaker: Another matter?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could you advise civil servants outside Parliament on a matter of procedure in the Commons—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have no authority over civil servants; my authority is only in the House. That is the answer.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I have authority only in this House—nothing to do with civil servants.

FLOOD PREVENTION AND LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND)
Mr. Secretary Forsyth, supported by Mr. George Kynoch and Mr. Secretary Hague, presented a Bill to amend the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 in relation to flood prevention measures to be taken by local authorities; to repeal section 11(2) of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1930 and section 8(2) of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1941; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 36].
KNIVES
Mr. Jimmy Wray, supported by Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Don Touhig, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. John McAllion and Mr. Jim Cunningham, presented a Bill to create new criminal offences in relation to the possession or marketing of, and publications relating to, knives; to confer powers on the police to stop and search people or vehicles for knives and other offensive weapons and to seize items found; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 December and to be printed [Bill 16].
PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS LICENCES (DRUG MISUSE)
Mr. Barry Legg, supported by Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Nigel Evans, Dr. Ian Twinn, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. David Faber, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Andrew Hargreaves, presented a Bill to amend the law about public entertainments licences relating to places at or near which controlled drugs are supplied or used and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 17].
CONFISCATION OF ALCOHOL (YOUNG PERSONS)
Mr. Nigel Evans, on behalf of Dr. Robert Spink, supported by Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. John Patten, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Faber, Sir Michael Shersby, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Walter Sweeney, Mr. Alan Beith and Ms Janet Anderson, presented a Bill to permit the confiscation of intoxicating liquor held by or for use by young persons in public and certain other places and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 18].
JURISDICTION (CONSPIRACY AND INCITEMENT)
Mr. Nigel Waterson, supported by Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Charles Wardle, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Nick Hawkins and Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, presented a Bill to make provision about conspiracy, or incitement, to commit offences outside the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 19].
COLD WEATHER PAYMENTS (WIND CHILL FACTOR)
Mrs. Audrey Wise, supported by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Ms Liz Lynne, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to provide that wind chill factor is taken into account in the calculation of cold weather payments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 20].
PRISONS (ALCOHOL TESTING)
Mr. Bernard Jenkin, on behalf of Mr. John Ward, supported by Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Sir Irvine Patnick, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. David Congdon and Mr. Michael Brown, presented a Bill to enable prisoners in England and Wales, and other persons to whom provisions of the Prisons Act 1952 are applied by section 43 of that Act, to be tested for alcohol: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 December and to be printed [Bill 21].
ROAD TRAFFIC (REDUCTION)
Mr. Don Foster, supported by Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Sir Richard Body, Ms Roseanna Cunningham and Mr. John Marshall, presented a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 22].
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Nigel Evans, supported by Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Ian Bruce, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. David Hanson, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Cohn Pickthall, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. John Sykes and Mr. Nigel Waterson, presented a Bill to make provision extending the categories of persons from whom non-intimate body samples may be taken without consent under Part V of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and to add a further time limit to those operating for the purposes of section 63A(4)(a) of that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 23].
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (FRAUD)
Mr. Ian Bruce, supported by Sir Michael Marshall, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr Stephen Timms and Mrs. Anne Campbell, presented a Bill to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984 to make further provision for the prevention of fraud in connection with use of a telecommunication system: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 December and to be printed [Bill 24].
UNITED NATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. John Marshall, supported by Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Michael Stern and Mr. Michael Brown, presented a Bill to enable effect to be given to certain provisions of the Convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9th December 1994: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 25].
GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL (ENGLAND AND WALES)
Sir Peter Fry, on behalf of Sir Malcolm Thornton, supported by Mr. Don Foster, Sir Alan Haselhurst, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. David Porter and Mr. Gerry Steinberg, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment in England and Wales of a General Teaching Council, with the functions of developing, promoting and regulating the practice of the profession of teaching, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 26].
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GAELIC NAMES) (SCOTLAND)
Mr. Thomas Graham, supported by Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Jimmy Hood and Mr. Eric Clarke, presented a Bill to enable local authorities in Scotland to take Gaelic names; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 December and to be printed [Bill 27].
HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (CONSENTS)
Mrs. Anne Campbell, supported by Mr. Joe Ashton, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Sir David Steel, presented a Bill to amend Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 so as to provide that consents to the use of gametes or embryos may exceptionally be given other than in writing: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 December and to be printed [Bill 28].
WITNESS PROTECTION
Mr. Eric Clarke, on behalf of Mrs. Irene Adams, supported by Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Phil Gallie, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. John McFall, presented a Bill to provide further protection for victims and other witnesses in criminal trials: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 29].

POLICE (HEALTH AND SAFETY)
Mr. Ray Whitney, supported by Mr. Alan Beith, Mr. John Greenway, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Ian Pearson and
996
Mr. Walter Sweeney, presented a Bill to make provision about the health, safety and welfare at work of members of police forces, special constables, other persons having the powers or privileges of a constable, and police cadets; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 30].

SEXUAL OFFENCES (PROTECTED MATERIAL)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes, supported by Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John Marshall and Mr. Don Touhig, presented a Bill to make provision for regulating access by defendants and others to certain categories of material disclosed by the prosecution in connection with proceedings relating to certain sexual and other offences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 31].
BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS
Mrs. Diana Maddock, supported by Mr. Roger Gale, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. David Jamieson, presented a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments regulating the breeding and sale of dogs; to regulate the welfare of dogs kept in breeding establishments; to extend powers of inspection and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 32].
POLICYHOLDERS PROTECTION
Mr. John Butterfill, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. John Greenway, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Nick Hawkins and Mr. David Trimble, presented a Bill to amend the Policyholders Protection Act 1975; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 33].
POLICE (PROPERTY)
Mr. David Evennett, supported by Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. David Porter, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Jim Callaghan and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to property in the possession of the police: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 34].
PHARMACISTS (FITNESS TO PRACTISE)
Sir Michael Shersby, supported by Sir John Hannam, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Anthony Steen, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mrs. Llin Golding, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. John Wilkinson, Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Gordon Oakes, presented a Bill to make provision about finding registered pharmaceutical chemists unfit to practise due to ill health; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1997 and to be printed [Bill 35].
Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House reasserts its belief in the fundamental principles of the National Health Service, established fifty years ago, that health care should be available to all, based on need and not on ability to pay; expresses its dismay at the changes effected by Her Majesty's Government, which are undermining these principles; is alarmed at the way in which the competitive internal market in the NHS is distorting decisions on patient care, creating a two-tier inequitable service, and has led to an explosion of unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy; expresses grave concern about the impending winter crisis in the NHS in many parts of the country, about which Her Majesty's Government appears wholly unconcerned; resolves to take wasteful expenditure out of the bureaucratic procedures of the internal market and devote it instead to improving patient care; and seeks to restore the ethos of the NHS to that of a public service, not of a commercial competitive business.
  The starting point for this debate must be a reassertion of our fundamental belief in the founding principles of the national health service, which was founded 50 years ago with the clear statement that health care should be available according to need, not according to ability to pay. The crucial question is whether those principles are being carried out in practice in the here and now. It is the Opposition's contention that the Government's actions, especially in the past five or six years, have fundamentally undermined those founding principles.
  Of course the Government say that they believe in the national health service and its principles; they issued a White Paper a few days ago to make that point at great length. However, we must turn our attention to what is happening in the health service throughout the country now, not in a fictitious future conjured up in a White Paper full of warm words and lacking a single legislative proposal. There is a large gap between the Government's rhetoric and what is happening on the ground.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: On the subject of rhetoric, has the hon. Gentleman seen the splendid article in The Independent, entitled "Is the NHS safe under Dr. Blair's team?" Does the hon. Gentleman prefer the point that says:
  "Labour's complacent attitude, which has focused on scoring points in opposition rather than constructing a viable alternative",
  or the point from the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research, which says:
  "From where we stand now, there will be no significant new public money for health care in the UK."?
  Which of those is right?
  Mr. Smith: I had expected rather better from the hon. Gentleman, who is normally more intelligent. If he had read the article that I wrote in response to that piece three days after it was published, he would know that neither of those accusations contained any truth whatever.
  998
  The reality is that the national health service is facing a crisis this winter, and everyone in the NHS knows it. The chairman of the consultants committee of the British Medical Association has said that the service is "close to collapse" and the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts has said that there are serious problems and that the health service faces the worst situation for years; only the Government seem to be unperturbed about what is happening on the ground.
  Mr. David Winnick: Did my hon. Friend see the article in last night's Evening Standard by its art critic? I strongly doubt whether he is a long-standing Labour supporter, but he wrote about his heart attacks and about the fact that he had to choose private surgery because of the crisis in the national health service. Does not that illustrate yet again how many people in our country feel betrayed by the Government because the national health service is not in a position to help when help is absolutely essential?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I never want the day to come when people feel that they have to go private because the national health service cannot deliver the care that they expect and to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does not that answer illustrate the fact that under Conservative management the number of private beds in the national health service has increased year on year to the point where people are encouraged to go private?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The private content of health provision has more than doubled under the Conservatives; the figure for private treatment is 11 per cent. and rising. I believe from what he has told the press that the Secretary of State for Health has private medical insurance.
  In figures presented to the House in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) a few weeks ago the Government had to admit that health authorities throughout the country will face an overall net deficit of about £120 million by the end of this financial year. What the Government cannot tell us, or at least they say that they cannot tell us, is how much deficit trusts are facing. However, the Health Select Committee has helpfully assisted us by showing that serious deficits are looming for a range of hospital trusts.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I would not like the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument on the basis of a misunderstanding of the position. Some questions have been tabled about the financial position of trusts. We are preparing answers and intend to publish them. The net figure anticipated for the end of this financial year for the whole trust sector is a surplus of £60 million.
  Mr. Smith: That is indeed interesting and new information. If this debate does nothing else, it has been useful in flushing that out. If that is the case, can the Secretary of State explain why the Royal Sussex county hospital has cancelled all dialysis for new patients for the rest of the financial year; why the King's Healthcare NHS trust has increased its waiting times for orthopaedic

  999
  patients to 18 months, even for patients with infected hips; why Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority has decided not to contract for any elective surgery from St. Helier NHS trust and St. George's NHS trust next year; or why no new ear, nose and throat patients are being taken on by the Royal Hospitals NHS trust in London for the remainder of the financial year? If there is such a healthy surplus in our hospitals, why are they withdrawing care and treatment from patients with every week and month that passes?
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins: My local trust took two and a half years to find that it was £1.5 million in debt. The financial regulations and the state of accountability are such that I do not know any trust that can say that it will be in surplus or debt next year because of the way in which they are run. Many of them simply do not know.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Does the £60 million that the Secretary of State told us about take account of the £100 million that the recent decision of Customs and Excise on the repayment of VAT to hospital trusts will cost hospital trusts in the course of the year?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that Customs and Excise announced at the end of October that it was giving every trust, health authority and NHS body until the end of November to submit applications for VAT repayments. The story that has been running in the newspapers on that subject is wrong, too.
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State ignores the fact that that does not apply to money that was paid out in VAT two or three years ago and which has not yet been reclaimed. The fact is that health trusts say that the recent decision by Customs and Excise eases the burden but does not remove it entirely. Whereas previously the burden might have been some £160 million, health trusts estimate that it will be about £100 million after the Government's recent announcement. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not know what is happening.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure about that. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how an organisation can assess outstanding VAT so that it can provide the estimate that the hon. Gentleman gave but cannot send it to Customs and Excise to reclaim the tax?
  Mr. Smith: That is what the hospital trusts are saying and I place greater credence on what they say than on what the Secretary of State says.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: A few moments ago my hon. Friend asked why the Royal Hospitals NHS trust had to make cuts. Is he aware that yesterday the East London and The City health authority announced cuts in the forthcoming year of £14 million of general treatment—an additional £4 million is to be announced in January, which could mean the closure of St Andrew's hospital, Bow—despite the fact that its capitation from the Secretary of State is about 600,000, yet the doctors' lists are 700,000? If that anomaly were corrected, would not some of those difficulties be removed?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has identified two factors. The first is that the Government often get their figures
  1000
  wrong—they have clearly done so in my hon. Friend's case as they do in many others. Secondly, there is an enormous gulf between the reality of what happens—in hospitals, health authorities and health services received by people up and down the country—and what the Government say is happening. There is a serious difference between what the Government say and what is being experienced.
  What is the Secretary of State doing about the winter crisis that is affecting east London and hospitals elsewhere in the country? Everyone in the health service knows that there is a serious problem looming. What is the Secretary of State doing about it? Precisely nothing. When he was pressed specifically on that point on television on Sunday he said clearly and firmly that there was no new money available this year to help hospitals through the crisis. He then said, "But it is the expectation of what will happen next year that really matters and makes the difference in the decisions that hospitals and health authorities have to make." What is he saying? Is he saying to health trusts that cannot legally overspend, "Don't worry; overspend if you have to. Get through the winter. Don't alarm the electorate in advance of a general election—help will be coming along in next year's funds"?
  I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity of today's debate to spell out precisely what he is saying to health trusts and health authorities around the country. Is there to be money this year or is there only going to be extra money next year—placating this year's crisis with next year's funds? If so, what happens next year? If he uses up next year's money to try to resolve this year's crisis, we shall end up with exactly the same problem next year. Instead of year on year on year of additional funding for the health service—the mantra that the Secretary of State likes to chant—it will be year on year of winter crises in the health service under a Tory Government.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House. Instead of criticising the Government on their handling of health policies, which is satisfactory, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House what his party would do. Would it spend more money on health? If so, would that money be in addition to the pledges already given which would increase taxation by 9p in the pound? We should be told.
  Mr. Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not seem to be worried about what is happening at St. Helier hospital, which I should have thought would have been of concern to her constituents. I am astonished at the hon. Lady who, along with the Secretary of State, says that the Labour party will not spend more money on the health service. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the chairman of the Conservative party publish documents purporting that Labour will spend an extra £1.3 billion on the health service. Can they make up their minds? Do they believe that we will spend more money on the health service, or that we will not? There are two voices coming from the Tory party—sometimes two voices coming from the same person. I am sure that we are about to hear them from the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Dorrell: I have been too kind to the hon. Gentleman, because I have always assumed that the

  1001
  proposals that were set out this morning by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and which would have the effect of increasing costs in the health service without treating a single extra patient would be paid for out of a Labour extra spend. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those extra costs would be paid for by the fewer patients who would be treated in Labour's health service?
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State is talking as much rubbish as the Chief Secretary did. He must concern himself with what is happening now in the health service.
  The right hon. Gentleman must also show particular concern for the position in Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has publicly acknowledged that the 3 per cent. efficiency savings that the Government have required of the health service in Northern Ireland cannot be made through efficiency alone. The Labour party did not say that and nor did anyone in the health service—it was the Government's own Minister who said that the effect of the 3 per cent. cut in funding for Northern Ireland, supposedly for efficiency purposes, actually involves 1.5 per cent. of cuts in the service. I am surprised that the Secretary of State shows such a cavalier attitude to a Minister in his own Government admitting that the requirements of funding in the current financial year in Northern Ireland mean a cut in service of 1.5 per cent.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that I endorse his criticism of both the deficit in funding for this winter and the risk of deficit in the years to come and that I share his commitment to the NHS. However, he owes the House an obligation to confirm whether it is currently Labour policy that the only additional funding committed to the NHS by the Labour party is £100 million to be derived from bureaucracy savings; and that, as the shadow Chancellor confirmed this morning, there will be no more money from the Labour party for the NHS in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into precisely the trap that the Tories want him to fall into. Before we can go with any real confidence to the Chancellor, the shadow Chancellor or the taxpayers of this country to argue for additional funds for the national health service, we have to be able to demonstrate that every single penny that is currently raised and spent is being spent wisely. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case at the moment—it is self-evidently not the case from the bureaucratic procedures that have been introduced with the internal market.
  Indeed, it is precisely that competitive internal market that is worsening the current winter crisis. It is setting hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor; it is leading to the fragmentation of the service and a lack of strategic planning; and it is distorting decisions on patient care.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I have given way a lot, but I shall give way for the final time to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman speaks of hospitals being set against hospitals. May I draw his attention to
  1002
  the situation in mid-Wales, where it is clear that the only way in which Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust will be able to cope financially next year is by either reducing the range of services at the district general hospital, or closing community hospitals? Is not that an intolerable dilemma?
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that community hospitals have an essential place and that trusts should not be put in that sort of position? Will he make it clear that his party, when in government—I ask this question in all sincerity—will ensure that hospitals and trusts of that sort will be protected against the unreasonable rigours of the internal market?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the problems confronting community hospitals and cottage hospitals throughout the country. The Conservative Government told us at the Tory party conference that they believed that reinventing the cottage hospital was the way forward. They are right to regard that as an essential ingredient of a good-quality health service of the future, but perhaps they can tell us why they have closed 250 cottage hospitals in the past five years. As always, the Government's rhetoric on the Tory party conference platform is not reflected in what is happening in the health service.
  The introduction of the internal competitive market has introduced a two-tier service into the NHS. Anyone who doubts that need only consider what is happening in Lincoln County hospital. It has written to all non-fundholding GPs in its area, saying that it is cancelling all out-patient appointments for the rest of the financial year; but out-patient appointments are continuing for the patients of fundholders.
  Norfolk and Norwich hospital has cancelled all routine surgery for patients of non-fundholding GPs. Edinburgh Western General hospital has told patients of fundholders that they can be given diagnostic scans in one or two weeks, but patients of non-fundholders must wait a year.
  Yesterday, The Times published a letter by the consultant orthopaedic surgeon at St. Thomas' hospital, just the other side of the river from the House. He said:
  "At St. Thomas' Hospital surgeons have been advised by the local purchasing authority that it will pay only for patients who are medically urgent or who have been on the waiting list 18 months. A fundholding patient can be seen and treated much more quickly."
  That is the reality in hospital after hospital throughout the country. The patients of fundholders are able to obtain access to treatment in a very different way from patients of non-fundholders. That situation is a fundamental breach of the principles of equity, fairness and equal access to treatment that are supposed to be at the heart of the national health service.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has just made an oft-repeated charge against the fundholding scheme. It is a golden opportunity for him to tell the House his policy for the future of fundholding.
  Mr. Smith: Before I do so, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what he will do about restoring equity to the national health service, because the Government in which he serves and his policies have created the unfairnesses and the injustice. It cannot be right that

  1003
  patients living in the same street, with the same condition and the same needs, are treated differently because they have a different type of general practitioner.
  The Secretary of State says that everyone now accepts the market changes that the Government have introduced. He said frequently on radio and television last week, backing his White Paper, that he was seeking to draw a line under the changes to the health service because everyone agreed with them now, so he wanted to move on to other things.
  I must tell the Secretary of State that everyone does not agree with the changes. One of the reasons why we do not agree is that the two-tier nature of the service that has been created fundamentally undermines what the NHS is supposed to be about. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, we want among other things to take money out of unnecessary bureaucratic procedures—the invoices for every patient, the paperwork chasing itself from one end of the system to the other, and the fact that a hospital such as Great Ormond Street each year has to establish 60 contracts with health authorities around the country and 1,500 contracts with fundholding practices. There are now 20,000 more managers in the NHS than there were five years ago and 50,000 fewer nurses. That speaks volumes about the Government's priorities for the health service.
  The British Medical Association estimates that the internal market bureaucracy which the Government have imposed on the health service costs £1.5 billion a year. Certainly, we want to take money out of red tape and put it into patient care, because that is what is desperately needed.
  Ministers will say that everything is fine because of the Prime Minister's commitment to increase funding for the health service year on year. The people of Britain will recall that he is the same Prime Minister who promised tax cuts year on year at the election, yet the Government have ended up putting up taxes 22 times since then.
  What does this supposed commitment from the Government actually mean?
  Mr. Dorrell: More money.
  Mr. Smith: How much more money? How much do the Government actually mean to spend on the health service? What are the figures? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a revealing interview just a few minutes after the Prime Minister had made his speech to the Conservative party conference. On Sky News, a reporter pressed the Chancellor on how important the commitment was. "What is the minimum?" he asked. The Chancellor replied:
  "Oh well, there's … What we actually did was not say"—
  whereupon the reporter interrupted as follows:
  "You can't say. It could be £1 above inflation!"
  The Chancellor replied:
  "We've not planned for five years ahead, it could be a lot of, um … everything depends on getting the economy right."
  So much for the pledge that the Government have given us—it all depends on getting the economy right. Under pressure from the reporter, the Chancellor had to admit that he could not say what the expenditure would amount to.
  1004
  It is always useful to read the book instead of gazing into the crystal ball. During the 20 years to 1992, under Governments of both political persuasions, average real-terms growth in expenditure on the health service—even under Lady Thatcher—was 3.1 per cent. And what have the Government managed during the past five years? They have managed an average of 2.9 per cent. The Red Book which accompanied last year's Budget tells us that there will be a 0.6 per cent. increase in real-terms NHS-expenditure next year, and a 0.1 per cent. increase the year after that. If the Government match that, they will have fulfilled the Prime Minister's promise—but by an amount way below the solid average rate of increase achieved by previous Governments.
  We are told that the Secretary of State for Health has fought the good fight with the Chancellor and secured extra resources over and above 0.6 per cent. for next year. I expect that the sum will be rather more than the £500 million that has been leaked to the press, probably by his own Department, because he likes to massage public opinion in advance and create the expectation of a particular figure. Lo and behold, when a larger amount is allocated, a great triumph is proclaimed.
  Whatever the figure is, I bet you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it will be below the 3.1 per cent. average that previous Governments achieved. For the record, the last five years of the Labour Government achieved a 16 per cent. increase in real-terms in national health service expenditure. During the past five years this Government have achieved a real-terms increase of 14 per cent., so they have performed worse than the previous Labour Government and we will take no lessons from them about our commitment to the funding of the NHS.
  The Prime Minister made no mention of capital spending in the national health service. There is no mention of it in the White Paper. There is no mention of the Government's 17 per cent. cut in capital spending in the health service. They will tell us, of course, that the private finance initiative will close the gap. That is what they told us in the Red Book last year. At the time of the Budget last year, the Red Book stated:
  "Several large hospital private finance schemes are due to complete the procurement process and receive approval in 1995–96"—
  that was a year ago, not the current financial year—
  "with a total capital value of around £250 million."
  The Red Book goes on to state that
  "by the end of next year it is expected that projects worth £1 billion will have come forward for approval. During 1996–97 it is expected that the private sector will invest around £165 million in NHS facilities and these figures are expected to be exceeded in subsequent years."
  Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us why not a single brick has been laid in a single hospital scheme under the PFI to date.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps the Government can also tell us why hospital after hospital around the country and contractor after contractor complain about the

  1005
  bureaucratic process, the expense, the complexity and the inadequacy of the PFI system for funding hospital building work. I will give way for the final time.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the biggest cuts in the capital programme for hospital building were made by the last Labour Government in the 1970s? That is indisputable.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us why, back in 1990, the Government promised that Norwich would have its new hospital under the private finance initiative, yet it is still not signed, sealed and delivered. The Government relaunch the plan every year and tell us that it is about to happen, but Norwich is still waiting for its new hospital.
  There are two more specific points that I want to raise. The first relates to mixed sex wards in hospitals. The Patients Association is right to describe having to be in a mixed sex ward against one's will as an affront to the dignity of the patient. It causes distress and concern to many patients, especially women, to be placed in a mixed ward when they do not want to be in such a ward. This, of course, happens at a time of great trauma: when patients face surgery or treatment.
  When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Prime Minister on this point yesterday, he pointed out that that promise was made by the Government two years ago in the patients charter. Yet it remains unfulfilled. In January 1995, the patients charter said that patients could expect single-sex washing and toilet facilities and that their wish to be treated in single-sex wards
  "will be respected wherever possible".
  Those two promises sound very good on paper, but the report from the Patients Association yesterday revealed that segregated washing and toilet facilities are far from being the norm, and that patients throughout the country commonly report that if they express a preference to be treated in a single-sex ward—as the charter encourages them to do—they are suddenly told that their wait for treatment will be far longer as a result. The pledge in the patients charter effectively offers patients only a Hobson's choice, and it is not worth the paper that it is written on.
  In addition, I am very concerned that the Department of Health does not even collect information on hospitals that force patients on to mixed sexed wards against their will. The Prime Minister did not appear to understand the question when asked by my right hon. Friend yesterday, let alone answer it.
  In almost every case, both men and women prefer to be treated in single-sex wards in hospital. Labour believes that it should be a matter of good practice, and the improved management of beds to achieve this end should be one of the priorities in the Government's management of the health service.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is.
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State says that it is, but the Prime Minister appeared to disagree with that yesterday. He was saying, "There are other things that are more important. We have been concentrating on other things. Then in due course we'll turn to this matter." He does not recognise the urgency of the matter and the need to deal with it in the immediate future.
  1006
  The second issue that I wish to raise is the gagging of national health service staff, who are told in their contracts that they cannot speak out about the service in general or in particular. It is all right, of course, for the bigwigs who support the Government. The national health service "good news network" has been established by the Conservative party. Four of the group's regional organisers hold positions on trusts and health authority boards. They include Mrs. Audrey Collins, chair of South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS trust, Charles Bunker, director of East Hertfordshire NHS trust, Mrs. Mary Firth, chair of the Royal Oldham Hospital and Community Services NHS trust, and Mrs. Susan Wrigley, chair of the North Yorkshire health authority.
  The good news network in the national health service is supposed to supply information to help the Government. It engages in overtly political activities, such as
  "feeding back good news stories so that Ministers and Conservative Central Office can use them."
  There is one rule for them, but for ordinary staff in the national health service it is completely different. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is total rubbish.
  Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I do.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps he would like to say that to the ambulance man from Surrey ambulance service whom I met this morning. He told me that he had written a letter to his local newspaper to complain about the downgrading of the local fire station and the implications that it would have for other emergency services in being able to reach and treat patients. He is now threatened with disciplinary action by the Surrey ambulance service. If the Secretary of State means what he says—that it is perfectly all right for people who work in the health service to speak out about what they see and are worried about and to raise complaints of a general nature about what is happening in the service and in their area—perhaps he will tell not just the Surrey ambulance service but hospital after hospital throughout the country, as they are disciplining members of staff who speak out. Perhaps he will tell them that the Government's policy has changed, because it certainly has not changed on the ground.
  We have a health service that is in crisis, that tries to silence its members of staff, that cannot even deliver same sex wards to the people who wish to have them. Year on year, the Government creates a winter crisis. Year on year we see an explosion of bureaucracy. Year on year we see more managers and fewer nurses. Year on year, we see patients on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. Year on year we see cancelled operations. Year on year we see lengthening waiting lists. Year on year we see staff in the health service struggling to cope with the changes that the Government have imposed on them.
  The Labour party believes that the national health service should be run as a public service, not a commercial business. Health care is not something that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. It is too important for that. The NHS should not be for contracts, invoices or market forces; it should be for patients, first, second and third. It will take a Labour Government to rescue and restore a real health service in this country.
  5.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes the National Health Service is one of the success stories of modern Britain and is wholeheartedly committed to developing the NHS on the basis of its founding principles of universality, high quality and availability on the basis of clinical need, without regard for the patient's ability to pay; expresses its support for the Government's initiatives to release £300 million from unnecessary NHS administration; welcomes both the Government's further plans to develop NHS primary care and the recent White Paper A Service With Ambitions, which sets out a medium-term framework for a high-quality patient-focused NHS; and welcomes the Government's pledge to spend more money on the NHS, over and above inflation, for each year of the five years of the next Parliament."
  The House has just heard a speech of breathtaking complacency from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Not only that, his speech further demonstrates, if it were necessary, the bankruptcy of the Labour party—the dilettante approach that it has taken for 17 years to the development of health policy.
  We are having this debate because the Opposition Front Bench chose health as the subject for today's debate—
  Mr. Chris Smith: Yes, and we will keep on doing so.
  Mr. Dorrell: I look forward to it—every week if we can have this kind of debate and speech from the hon. Gentleman.
  We might have expected, as the Opposition chose this subject for debate, that they would have had something to say. Instead, we have heard a tissue of innuendo and half truth, undermining public confidence in a great public service. Frankly, there is something rather indecent about the spectacle of the hon. Gentleman luxuriating in anecdotes of service weakness while offering absolutely nothing of any substance as to what he thinks should be done to strengthen, build and plan for the future of the national health service.
  We heard not even the merest hint of a policy from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, simply the complacent suggestion that the national calamity of a Labour Government somehow offers a short cut into a garden of Eden for the national health service. Let us take his arguments one by one and analyse what he told the House.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I shall develop my argument and give way later.
  Let us begin by examining the so-called arguments—that is a grand word to describe what the hon. Gentleman used. He referred to the statistics that were much beloved of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), but mere repetition does not make them true. They like talking about 50,000 fewer nurses. The only problem with that argument is that the nursing work force of the national health service has grown by 55,000 under the Conservative Government, and the nursing work force today is at exactly the same level as it was in 1990. It is simply not true to say that the nursing work force in the health service has decreased.
  The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends like to talk about the increasing number of managers in the NHS, but they speak with forked tongue on that subject. In June this year, the Leader of the Opposition told the Daily Mirror:
  1008
  "The Health Service needs to be managed and the management probably needed to be improved."
  When they are under pressure, Labour Front Benchers acknowledge that the traditional system of management in the health service was inadequate. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Peckham, have said so repeatedly. A few years ago, the Socialist Health Association said that the NHS was "traditionally under-managed" and that Labour "should avoid bureaucrat-bashing". That is rather good advice, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to take it.
  The hon. Gentleman should also examine the Labour party's record when it comes to squeezing unnecessary administrative costs from the health service. We would take his comments about squeezing out £100 million in unnecessary administrative costs more seriously if it were not for the fact that every Opposition Member voted against abolishing regional health authorities, which removed £100 million in unnecessary administrative costs from the health service at a stroke. We introduced a programme to make administrate savings of £300 million in the two years ending next March. It would be nice if Opposition Front Benchers recognised our achievements occasionally rather than glibly asserting that they would knock off £100 million—without providing any evidence of how they would do it.
  In his closing passage, the hon. Gentleman mentioned waiting lists. I think that he used the phrase, "year-on-year increases." That is an impossible charge that does not reflect what has happened to waiting lists in the past five years since we began to take effective action to reduce waiting times in the national health service. In 1979, one in four patients waited for more than a year for elective surgery. That figure is now one in 250—a huge cut.
  Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State tell us the total waiting list figure for the last quarter, which was published only a month and a half ago? Did that figure show an increase or a decrease?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman should consider what is important—I believe that it is the time that individuals spend on the waiting list. In 1979, one in four patients waited more than a year for treatment. That figure is now one in 250. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that is an improvement in the waiting time performance of the health service? Will he go to the Dispatch Box and say that things have not improved when the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment has fallen from one in four to one in 250?
  Mr. Smith: In other words, the Secretary of State's answer to my question is that the waiting list figure has increased.
  Mr. Dorrell: I simply ask the hon. Gentleman whether he believes that we should focus on improving the performance of and the service provided by the NHS, or play silly statistical games.
  Mr. John Garrett: What does the Secretary of State mean by "waiting list"? The greatest increase has been in the number of people awaiting a first out-patient appointment. In my constituency and in

  1009
  London, people often wait six or eight months for their first out-patient consultation before they go on the waiting list for an operation in a year or 18 months.
  Mr. Dorrell: I mean exactly what the last Labour Government meant by the term "waiting list": the number of people who have been told by their consultants that they need a particular course of treatment and are waiting to receive it—the published figure. There has been a huge improvement in the quality of service delivered by the NHS, and it is simply dishonest to talk about a deterioration in the NHS waiting list performance.
  So much for the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Let us look at what a Labour Government would do. Although the hon. Gentleman offered no hints this afternoon, I would like to discuss some evidence with the House.
  Sir Donald Thompson: I know that my right hon. Friend has many important points to make and I thank him for giving way. I fear that, as usual, he is being too generous. He has not put his finger on the reason why the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is sitting on the Opposition Benches and why we have been sitting on the Government Benches for nearly 20 years. When Labour controlled the health service, it was not Health Ministers but convenors of the local union who determined who would have operations in area after area, month after month. It is not a myth; it is the truth. Furthermore, patients who died while on waiting lists in Liverpool could not be buried until the same convenor said it was their turn. That is why the Conservatives are on the Government Benches and why we shall stay here.
  Mr. Dorrell: As ever, my hon. Friend advances exactly the right argument. There has been a huge improvement in the quality and range of NHS services and in the conditions outside it—to which my hon. Friend referred—which disrupted patient services in a quite indefensible manner in the declining years of the last Labour Government.
  Let us consider what Labour would do. That consideration did not detain the hon. Gentleman while he was at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, but I suppose that that is not surprising: he does not believe that he must answer the academic question what he might do if he were responsible for the health service. Let us begin with money. The Prime Minister has made crystal clear the Conservative Government's commitment to real-terms growth, year by year, in spending on the national health service during the next Parliament. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) to the Fabian Society earlier this year. He said:***
  "Labour's health policy will not look credible at the general election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives in recent years."
  He is spot on, and he should persuade the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), of the force of his argument, or he will take the rap in York.
  Mr. Bayley: It is hardly a great promise by the Government to increase health spending in real terms—after all, every Government have done that in every year since the national health service was
  1010
  established to meet increasing demand arising from an aging population and new treatments. The Secretary of State presented to the Health Committee this year figures that show that, during the past five years, real-terms growth in spending on the NHS has decreased from 6.5 per cent. to 5.4 per cent., 3.3 per cent., 1.9 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. Growth has decreased year after year, to a point where it can no longer pay for the increased costs of aging and new technologies and treatments.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for York is beginning to make a short speech. He must wait his turn.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's speech is extremely helpful to the Government, because he reveals why the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and his shadow Cabinet colleagues dare not give the same pledge as the Prime Minister. To do so, they would have to reveal the skeleton in Labour's cupboard about its record in office.
  The hon. Member for York said that the NHS budget has always increased in real terms year after year. That is not true. Under the last Labour Government, the NHS budget was cut by 2.8 per cent.—it did not grow by 3 per cent.—in real terms in 1977–78. Labour's record is worse still. In 1979, under the last Labour Government, health expenditure was lower in real terms than it was in 1976. Three years on, as a result of the cut imposed in 1977–78, health expenditure was down in real terms from what it was in 1976. The skeleton in Labour's cupboard—I understand why Labour Members do not want it to be revealed—is that, during the last three years it was in office, it failed to deliver what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pledged we will deliver during the next five years of Conservative government, as we have done for the past 17 years.
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State ignores the fact that, in the five years of that Labour Government, the overall real-terms increase in national health service expenditure was 16 per cent., which is better than this Government have achieved in the past five years.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman glosses over the fact that expenditure was lower in real terms. In the three years from 1976 to 1979, the NHS did not grow, and that was not the only cut made between 1974 and 1979.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that we should look at Labour's record. I have been looking at the Labour party's record in office, and it is quite instructive. It uses fine words about the health service, but it cut nurses' pay by 3 per cent. in real terms. What party builds a future for the national health service on a real-terms pay cut for nurses—and, furthermore, a real-terms pay cut for doctors of 31 per cent? When Labour was in office, there was 31 per cent. less than inflation for doctors. No wonder Labour is not keen to pledge itself to real-terms growth.
  It is a matter not just of money, but of how the health service should be managed. If the Labour party is at sea on the issue of money, it is in the middle of the ocean on the question of how the health service should be managed.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State's last sentence. When the Prime Minister made a

  1011
  commitment at the Bournemouth conference that money for the NHS would rise to keep pace with costs year on year, was that commitment to keep pace with national inflation, or to keep pace with inflation as it affects the health service, which for the whole period of Conservative government has been greater than average inflation across the economy? To which of those two figures did the commitment relate?
  Mr. Dorrell: As every taxpayer knows, we pay tax in pounds, not in NHS pounds. We are talking about real-terms growth in pounds corrected for inflation. That concept applies to the economy as a whole, and not to a specific part of the economy.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall make progress, and give way again later.
  I want to get on to the issue that is of great interest to people working in the health service. If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury were ever to be responsible for the health service, how would he want it to be managed? He is fond of the soundbite: he used that device again this afternoon when he said that Labour would abolish the internal market. The problem is that he also uses another soundbite, which is that he is in favour of the purchaser-provider split. He sometimes uses both soundbites in the same paragraph.
  The problem for anyone trying to understand the Labour party's policy is that those two phrases have precisely the same meaning. The hon. Gentleman is in favour of one description of the present state of affairs, but is not in favour of the other description of it. What kind of a policy is that?
  The hon. Gentleman is clear about the purchaser-provider split. In an interview with John Humphrys on the "Today" programme, he was asked:
  "But you would still keep this split between the purchaser, the health authority, and the provider, that's to say the hospitals"?
  The hon. Gentleman replied:
  "It is sensible to have a distinction between the people who plan and order treatment and the people who actually provide treatment."
  He could not have been clearer than that.
  The hon. Gentleman was merely confirming Labour party policy, which was set out in the policy document "Renewing the NHS." The document states:
  "There will be a clear distinction between the commissioning process … and the delivering process—using budgets within those services to meet needs."
  Again, it could not be clearer.
  The policy document goes on to make another important point. It states:
  "Health authorities will have agreements with different local health services and will have choice as to where to place them to suit patient needs."
  The document is crystal clear. The Labour party is in favour of the purchaser-provider split and of purchasers having a choice between different providers to reflect patient needs. That could not be clearer.
  The document states that
  "between the purchaser and provider"
  1012
  there would be
  "a long-term comprehensive health care agreement".
  The Labour party does not like the word contract, but prefers the phrase,
  "a long-term comprehensive health care agreement".
  Why use one word when five will do? However, the concept is the same. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, the Government are not committed to annual contracts for everything. I have repeatedly said that I am in favour of long-term contracts if there is a case for them in a particular context.
  The Labour party's policy documents are clear: it is in favour of a purchaser-provider split with the purchaser having the freedom to make a choice that will reflect patient need. The problem for the hon. Gentleman is the role of general practitioners in that process. The Government's position is crystal clear: GP fundholders have the power to place contracts; if the GP is not a fundholder, the health authority has an obligation to listen to the GP, but when a contract is placed referrals must be within that contract.
  Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are in total confusion. They say that they are in favour of GPs having a say in where long-term health care agreements should be placed. The hon. Member for Peckham was clear about that when she spoke to health service managers. She said that such agreements
  "will not be concluded without the involvement and consent of local GPs",
  but that
  "when the local plans have been agreed GPs will have to work to local strategies."
  The Labour party wants long-term care agreements to have teeth—very blunt teeth, it seems. In speeches made at the same time, Labour Members repeatedly asserted that a GP must be free to refer his or her patients anywhere in the country.
  What Labour's health policy amounts to is that purchasers should have the freedom to place agreements to reflect patients' interests, but GPs should be free to take no notice of agreements that health authorities have been paid to negotiate. The hon. Gentleman should decide which of his two soundbites he wants to run with: is he in favour of the purchaser-provider split and of the internal market, or is he in favour of abolishing the internal market, putting the health service through another round of management upheaval and having a different model of health service management? He cannot fudge this issue: he must come clean.
  In his speech, the hon. Gentleman did not even address the central question of the management of the health service, and he repeatedly refuses to do so. When I gave him the opportunity, he refused to deal with the other key issue relating to the management structure: the future of fundholding. Fundholding is the means by which we allow GPs to refer their patients directly where they choose. The Labour party has still to make its policy clear, although every policy document commits Labour to replacing fundholding. It tries to draw a distinction between replacing fundholding and abolishing it. No doubt my hon. Friends will tease out the difference between those two concepts, but I do not propose to detain the House any longer on it.

  1013
  The Labour party is irrelevant, because it has nothing to say about the future of the NHS. It is widely recognised by those who have analysed them that Labour's policy statements are contradictory: they say one thing, then they say the opposite. They offer no vision of the future of the national health service. That is provided by the Government. Last week we published our White Paper, which sets out clearly the principles on which the NHS is based. It addresses the issues that politicians are said to be frightened to address. Can we afford the NHS? How does the NHS decide priority setting? When have we heard a speech from the Opposition Front Bench about any of those issues?
  The White Paper also sets out the agenda with which the NHS must now deal. I am told that we do not publish legislation; the only flaw in that argument is the fact that I published a piece of legislation this morning, which sets out a future for a different contracting model in the primary care sector. I look forward to hearing the reaction of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The proposition that the Government do not have a clear view about the future of the health service as a whole and, in particular, the future of the primary care sector, is the result of Labour's applying to the Government a criticism that properly applies to itself.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I will not.
  In their White Paper, the Government have set out a clear route to the future of the national health service, converting into substance and reality the one thing said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury with which I absolutely agree. I refer to the founding principle of the national health service. In this country, we believe that health care should be available on the basis of the patient's clinical need, without regard to ability to pay. That is the key principle on which the national health service was built, and I believe that those who are committed to it have a clear obligation—a clear duty—to show how that high aspiration will be converted into reality. That is the duty that Opposition Front Benchers have failed to discharge.
  The NHS deserves better of the Opposition's health spokesman than we have had this afternoon. It is increasingly clear that we shall not get better from this bankrupt Opposition, and that we have not the slightest chance of seeing from them a clear path to the future of the national health service.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: I represent an area that is generally regarded as being the birthplace of the national health service. Indeed, my predecessors include not only Michael Foot but Nye Bevan.
  My area also has some of the worst health problems in the United Kingdom. The number of deaths from cancer, respiratory diseases and heart disease are well above the national average. The 1991 census for Blaenau Gwent showed that 41 per cent. of households included someone who suffered from either a long-term illness or a disability, and in 1993 the social services department had 4,000 people registered as disabled. On top of all that, we have the worst mental illness problems in Gwent. Ours is also one of the poorest areas in Wales—a fact that even the Welsh Office recognises.
  1014
  A Gwent health survey carried out between 1985 and 1989 confirmed that the most deprived parts of the county experienced the worst health. That conclusion is not peculiar to Gwent: it has been reached time and again elsewhere. If we are to tackle bad health, we need not only a first-class health service but to be successful in combating poverty.
  I want to concentrate on Gwent health authority, Gwent Community Health NHS trust and the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust, which do not seem to care about, or act in response to, the problems that I have described. I will deal first with Gwent health authority. Let me say at once what the authority is good at: it is good at producing one glossy magazine after another, filled with promises that it has no intention of keeping. For example, Jeremy Hallett, who until recently was chief executive of the authority—before, to put it politely, securing a job for one of his colleagues and then doing a runner to a nice little earner in another authority—stated in one of those glossy magazines:
  "Sharing responsibility is more than a quick fix consultation exercise. It must be about developing a long term relationship".
  He went on to say:
  "To no small extent community involvement has become conventional wisdom because we have been seen to make them work in Gwent to the great benefit of local people."
  Lindy Price, chairperson of Gwent health authority, stated, again in one of those many glossy magazines:
  "I would like to develop a culture of working together in the trust and county boroughs, with all general practitioners and community health councils"
  and
  "the general public when they are patients and when they are well".
  All those statements are rubbish and no more than a public relations stunt: the authority has continually treated my constituents with total disdain.
  Although everyone accepts that we have major health problems in Blaenau Gwent, Gwent health authority's response has been to cut the number of doctors. Most people would assume that the response to such problems should be an increase in the number. For example, in Cwm, near Ebbw Vale, the authority advertised for a replacement for a doctor who had resigned; instead of appointing another doctor, however, it merely handed over the patient list to another doctor already practising in the village. After a public outcry, the authority retreated, announcing that another doctor was to be appointed, but many local people thought that it would not happen—that it was just a publicity stunt to placate them. I did not believe that at the time, but I do now. I accept that the health authority was deliberately deceiving our people. But those people have no intention of sitting back and accepting the deception: they will continue to fight until they get the justice that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will investigate the health authority's deception, and the way in which it deliberately misled those with the greatest health problems.
  I am not surprised at the incompetence of Gwent health authority and its failure to respond to health needs. One has only to look at some of the appointments to its board. An executive from the Midland bank was appointed recently. I look forward to the time when nurses, ancillary workers and doctors are appointed to the board of that bank, although I suspect that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

  1015
  Then we have the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust which under the previous chief executive and board decided to organise shopping trips to France in an attempt to generate income. I do not expect the trust's members to know everything, but in the circumstances I would have expected them to find out first whether there was a bank holiday in France and whether the shops would be closed. However, that was obviously too much for the chief executive and senior staff, because when the trippers arrived the shops were closed. The trust was then forced to repay the cost to the trippers, together with compensation.
  Never short of ideas, the trust then decided to invest £125,000 in another computer control system, which has still not been made to work. I suspect—I may be wrong—that it may have used that system to organise the trip to France. That seems logical.
  Not satisfied with those disasters, the trust decided to invest £3.6 million in new headquarters, which it now accepts was an overspend of 50 per cent. It told the Welsh Office that the cost would be £2.4 million, although the directors knew at the time that it would be £3.1 million, and the actual cost was even higher.
  After all that—and much more—the non-executive directors are still in place. Will the Minister investigate and find out why that is? In the mean time, ambulance cover is being cut and morale is at a low ebb. I could give one example after another of the trust's inefficiency, but I will give just one more. The trust spent £350,000 employing consultants to cut transport costs. The cuts still have not reached more than one third of that figure, so that was not good value for money for taxpayers.
  Bob Hudson, chief executive of Gwent Community Health NHS trust, decided to reorganise mental health provision for people in a part of my community without consulting patients, their families, friends, nurses, doctors or anyone on the local authorities. When we protested about that in meeting after meeting, Mr. Hudson's response to the most vulnerable people in our community was:
  "Well folks, you've lost out".
  He then told us that he could not make the next meeting as he had decided to go on holiday in Ireland, and that in any event there was no chance of altering the plans. Consultants attended the next meeting, where the plans were totally changed and it was obvious that the reason was based on medical advice as opposed to advice from managers and senior administrators.
  I mention those examples—I could mention many more—to highlight the incompetence of Gwent health authority, Gwent Community Health NHS trust and the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust, and the uncaring attitude of their senior people. They do not understand, care or have a commitment to the NHS. To them, it is just another way of making a quick buck. Their promises in those glossy magazines were just words—a publicity stunt.
  I hope that a future Labour Government will examine those people, who are in senior positions in the health authority and on the board, and start replacing them with people who understand the service, who care for it and who know what is required to make it better. We must
  1016
  reject the philosophy of the NHS as a business and develop it into what Nye intended: a service, and a great service at that.
  5.42 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred with approbation to many quotations about the so-called "crisis in the health service." He gave a further quote, that it was "close to collapse", and said that it was in the "worst position for many years".
  Other press cuttings assert:
  "Crisis has become an uncomfortable way of life for the health service".
  They even assert that the "NHS faces collapse". The Times asserts:
  "Patients are suffering and the wait for an appointment is lengthening into months, and even years".
  Those are serious charges. Those phrases are almost identical to the phrases used by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The difference is that those press comments were made in 1975, not in 1995 and 1996. The same sort of comments as the hon. Gentleman made and the same sort of quotations as he used were made in 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 under the last Labour Government. In 1975, the Labour Government had to bring in an outsider, Lord Goodman, to sort out the mess in the NHS.
  My first point—I make it with some humility—is that a certain amount of care is necessary when talking about the state of the health service. Anyone who seriously believes that the election of a Labour Government would transform the health service's internal morale is not only deceiving himself, but arguing against all historical evidence. In the past 50 years, disputes in the NHS have been entirely politically neutral. If—God forbid—there were to be a Labour Government, that would not mean an end to disputes in the health service. No hon. Member seriously believes that. If they do, they should not be Members. The British Medical Association and the health unions would continue their attacks and continue to press for more resources.
  Let us try, therefore, to get away from dangerous nonsense that the NHS in some way faces collapse. It is not true of the NHS today any more, frankly, than it was in 1975. In the past 17 years, there has been a successful development of the NHS. No one would claim for a moment that there have not been problems, but the development has continued.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was not until the present Government's so-called reforms that trusts operated their budgets individually? Inevitably, those trusts have found themselves running at a considerable deficit. One of the trusts in my constituency is talking about an £11 million deficit this year. Therefore, we are talking not about the service as a whole, but about particular parts of it. The people in that service feel that it is on the point of collapse because they consider the budgets and the need to be met, and they know that they cannot meet it.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's statement that we are not talking about the whole of the NHS. I will make a specific point about NHS trusts that is the exact opposite of his point, but I am glad that at any rate some sanity is beginning to reassert itself in the general debate on the health service.
  However we measure it, in the past 17 years more resources have been devoted to the NHS, more patients have been treated than ever before, and more new hospitals have been built. I do not remember receiving a reply to my question to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who leads for the Opposition, about capital cuts in the 1970s. Waiting times have come down and nurses' pay has improved. The Government gave them a Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body, which the profession had wanted and which has had a profound effect on the pay of nurses throughout the service.
  In addition, the Government have made a commitment on the health service's future funding, which compares starkly, as anyone who has listened to the debate would agree, with what is coming from the Opposition Front-Bench team. I hope that, before the Opposition call another supply day on this subject, we might at least receive some replies to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) raised a point about the trusts. One of the trusts' impressive features has been the way in which they are now able to respond quickly to some of the problems in the health service. We deceive ourselves if we think that there will never be problems in the health service. Twelve months ago, my local hospital of Good Hope in Sutton Coldfield was at the centre of a storm. There was a great dispute about waiting times and patients waiting on trolleys. What has been impressive is the way in which the dispute has been handled, thanks particularly to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health. We now have a new reception area, a new ward for receiving accident and emergency patients and two new operating theatres. That is the impressive way in which the trust has responded.
  I do not say to the hon. Gentleman that, in some miraculous way, this is going to guarantee for all time that there will not be problems and crises. No one can guarantee that. Let us be adult about that and accept it, but the new facilities have had a profound effect on morale in the hospital. Anyone who visits it will understand and recognise how much they are welcomed.
  I should like to deal with the central point of this debate, and to concentrate on the section of the Opposition's motion that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury rightly concentrated on, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It states:
  "That this House reasserts its belief in the fundamental principles of the National Health Service … that health care should be available to all, based on need and not on ability to pay … and seeks to restore the ethos of the NHS to that of a public service, not of a commercial competitive business."
  That brings us to the crucial and persistent charge made by the Opposition against the Government for the past 17 years: that we are somehow concerned with moving away from the principle that health care should be available to all, based on need and not on ability to pay, and that we are concerned with—although I welcome the fact that, for
  1018
  once, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury did not use the word—privatising the health service. That is arrant nonsense, but it has not prevented the scare from being run, year after year and in every election in which I have taken part since 1979.
  Mr. Bayley: During the time the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, the NHS provided long-term nursing care free. If one needs long-term nursing care now, it is necessary to go to the private sector and to private nursing homes. It is no longer a free service: it is a means-tested service.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for that endorsement of my period in office, although that fact did not prevent my being attacked—just as every Secretary of State responsible for the health service has been attacked—for wishing to privatise the NHS. I remember that on one Saturday morning in 1983 the Opposition had published a "leaked" copy of a "secret" Health Department report planning the privatisation of the health service. Those reports are always secret, and they are always leaked. Michael Foot called it
  "the most serious attack on the NHS since it was originally started."
  That does not exactly understate his opposition to my policy. The only trouble was that neither I nor the Minister for Health could remember precisely which leaked report Mr. Foot had in mind.
  It subsequently became clear that Mr. Foot had in mind a consultation document published under the very threatening title, "Co-operation between the NHS and the private sector at district level" and containing such threatening ideas as allowing NHS patients access to underused high-technology equipment in the private sector. In short, the radical idea that was so attacked by the Opposition was that of co-operation between the sectors. The idea was that resources were out there which, whether they were labelled "public resources" or "private resources", they could be used for the good of patients—an entirely sensible policy which I hope and believe that Ministers are developing.
  The only sensible meaning of the charge of privatising the health service can be that we intend to change the entire basis of financing the health service and that we are intent on moving it from an essentially tax-funded service to one based on private health insurance. However, surely the only significant point of that debate is that that option has been rejected by every Conservative Secretary of State responsible for health since 1979. It has been rejected by successive Conservative Cabinets. It has been rejected explicitly, in his latest White Paper, by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Health. It was rejected by Lady Thatcher, and it is most certainly rejected by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are committed to a tax-funded service. Moreover, we are committed to providing real increases in its resources to an extent that, up to now, the Labour party has not even dared to hint at.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept those two commitments, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the percentage of those using private health insurance continues to increase—it is currently 11 per cent. and

  1019
  projected to be 14 per cent. by the end of the decade—we shall have privatisation of the UK health care system not by intention but by fact?
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is not privatisation in the remotest sense, whether by intention or by fact. Let us turn the situation around. If the Liberal party wishes to say that it will abolish the private sector in the NHS, let it do so, but I do not think that 14 per cent. is an extraordinary percentage. We believe in freedom of choice. If the Labour party or the Liberals wish to say that that is not their policy, let them do so. Up to now, however, they have not done so. I will let the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) make his own speech—he has a wonderful habit of making speeches during the speeches of other hon. Members—but I would like to have their position explained.
  We are also committed to achieving the very best value for the taxpayers' money that we use, which also distinguishes us from the Opposition. The real difference between us and the Opposition is in this sphere. We are committed to the NHS as a public service, which does not mean that everyone in that public service has to be employed directly by the NHS. Opposition Members seem to think of the performance of the health service, and perhaps of public services generally, in terms of whether it directly employs all its work force. That is why the Opposition have consistently opposed, for example, the initiatives taken in contracting out services.
  The reason for contracting out ancillary services is clear enough, and the policy—which is not in the least controversial—is followed by other service providers and by virtually every other major industrial company in the United Kingdom. The case for it is simple. They have found that specialist companies outside can often provide a better and more cost-effective service than an in-house provider. The fact that we want to use contracted-out services certainly does not mean that we want to privatise the health service.
  I am sceptical about the Opposition's new-found enthusiasm for attacking bureaucracy. If more can be done in delayering the health service, I should be very much in favour of it—although I realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is already promising £300 million in savings from administrative reforms. The real scandal of bureaucracy, however, occurs when responsibility is shuffled from one administrator to another, when no one takes responsibility, when no one knows where the buck stops, when difficult decisions are avoided and when decisions are for ever delayed in cumbersome committees. That is why, in the 1980s, we acted to introduce general managers into the NHS—so that the buck would stop somewhere. The reform was, of course, fought all the way by the Labour party, but we introduced it in the teeth of Labour opposition. That reform is one of the reasons why decision making in the health service is better today and I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will accept it as a permanent piece of policy for the future.
  We should recognise that all parties are basically agreed that the future of the health service is as a tax-based service. There is no dispute about that. The real debate should be about which party can provide the strong
  1020
  economy that is necessary to provide a strong health service. That is the addition to the argument—it must be. Although the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury criticised the Chancellor for making that obvious point, it is clear and obvious that without a strong economy and strong financial policy, the health service would suffer. It may be reassuring for some to say that all that is needed is the stating of priorities, but history shows that that is not so. The matter is not simply one of making statements. When the Labour Government cut the hospital-building programme—and it was, I repeat, a devastating cut—it was not because they wanted to do so, but because they were forced to do so due to the collapse of their economic policy.
  The judgment that the public need to make relates to health service performance and health service commitment. On those two matters, the Government have nothing to fear. The public also need to judge economic policy because without a successful economic policy, pledges and promises are frankly just words.
  For six years, I was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services. In that time, I acquired an immense respect for those working in the health service—whether nurses, doctors, managers or staff. The health service in this country provides the most cost-effective service of any health system in the world. Of course, at any stage in the past 50 years a case could be made for spending more money. That has been so for any Government at any time, but it should not disguise just how well and effectively the NHS has performed, especially over the past 17 years.
  I would never remotely support privatisation of the health service, but that is not a real issue. The Government have made their commitment to the NHS crystal clear. It is because of the Government's commitment and record that I shall support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that earlier today a number of hon. Members raised the issue of an apparent slur on the Cabinet Secretary and on the impartiality of the civil service. Since then, the Cabinet Office has issued a statement claiming that the Evening Standard story is "a travesty". Is there any way of bringing those hon. Members back to the House to apologise to the civil servants who have been drawn into a political controversy in a completely unwarranted manner?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding that Madam Speaker indicated that the matter was not one with which she could deal. The matter must be dealt with in some other way.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am very happy to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). His speech should be read widely, because it reinforced the view that the national health service is not the property of any one political party and has not been supported or, indeed, encouraged only by any one political party. It has become part of the fabric of British life. Providing a health service is one of the things that we do best. It is certainly a hugely cost-efficient and effective way of delivering health care.

  1021
  The right hon. Gentleman's stewardship of it was extremely responsible and committed. I have some minor quibbles with him, but, in general, his job was handled very securely.
  It is welcome that it became clear in the White Paper—which, to be honest, was not really a White Paper, but came out under such a title—that was published last week, that the Secretary of State reinforced without qualification the view that not only should we have a tax-funded NHS, but we can afford it. I hope that the one message that comes out of the debate is that there is no threat to the existence of the NHS from some specious belief that large numbers of older people will make it unaffordable. In fact, I would argue that paying for a good health service is not undermined by an argument that older people are more disadvantageous to society. The NHS is as likely to be as affordable in the lifetime of every hon. Member as it has been in the past.
  Like the Secretary of State, I welcome a debate on the NHS. I welcome an opportunity to pay tribute to the service, to praise those who work in it and to say how good I believe it is. It serves hon. Members and our constituents extraordinarily well. Of course, things go wrong and sometimes there are sad mistakes and tragedies.
  I also share the Secretary of State's view that the Labour party has made an extraordinary choice of subject for the debate. Nye Bevan would turn in his grave at the lack of the Labour party's financial commitment to the health service. As somebody who was brought up in south Wales and who shares and understands Nye Bevan's commitment to the health service, I understand now the problems that he said he had in the 1940s.
  In 1942–43, when Beveridge wrote his famous report and said that the precondition for a welfare state was a health service funded by the taxpayer, Nye Bevan supported that view, but had the greatest difficulty in persuading the Labour party to agree until well into the beginning of the 1945 Government. After the implementation of the Beveridge report, in the period at the end of the war, from 1943 to 1945—at the time Beveridge was not a Member of Parliament, but became a Liberal Member of Parliament in 1945 and a Liberal Peer thereafter—Nye Bevan said:
  "It is a form of torture unknown to the ancients … to convert the leaders of the Labour Party … to recapture territory occupied by Beveridge … I can sympathise with that fellow Sisyphus and his bloody boulder".
  For all sorts of reasons, the Labour party found it difficult at first—there were many objections—to accept the whole idea of the welfare state being predicated on a national health service. It came round to the view, thank goodness, voted for it and put it in its post-war programme. We supported Labour, the Tories opposed it, but now there is unanimity.
  The Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I were pre-recording a Granada Television programme last week—which, coincidentally, is going out tonight in the Granada region—during which someone from the audience asked whether we could please reach all-party agreement on the health service and have less party politicking on it. I endorse that view. Out there, the public are fed up with our trying to score silly points on the health service and want us to take it back into common ownership and to make as many common commitments as possible.
  1022
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is absolutely right. The precondition for a successful health service is having the necessary money to spend on it. It will need more money, because demand is growing. Paradoxically, the better the health service and the more successful primary care, the more demand will grow. At the moment, demand is growing quite strongly.
  Whatever the success of the economy, however, the public will always need to know the respective parties' specific commitments for the coming Parliament. Today, the Government have said that, year on year, funding will keep pace with inflation, although not NHS inflation, and all we have heard from the Labour party is a commitment to make £100 million-worth of bureaucracy savings. My colleagues and I are now in the position that we have made a simple budgetary decision to commit a significantly greater amount than either of the other two parties. I shall address the fact later that this may mean that taxes would not be cut.
  Unarguably, there will be difficulties in the national health service this winter. The sequence of events went something like this: in the run-up to the autumn, no public figures were available on what the difficulties would be. As the NHS did not produce the figures, my office calculated that the shortfall this year in the health authorities in England would be at least £133.4 million, of which about £55 million came from the two Thames regions.
  In October, the British Medical Association estimated that £200 million was needed. The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts said something similar. The Government then produced their figures, in response to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which stated that the shortfall would be about £122 million. I do not pretend that that figure is cast in stone. I accept that it will change as the year goes on. However, I know that health authority after health authority and trust after trust are really worried about what will happen this winter. The problem exists because last year we overspent what was allocated and the extra money was taken out of this year's budget.
  The first issue on which I should like a response from the Government—the Secretary of State knows that I am concerned about this—is that, whatever the final arrangements for the Chancellor's Budget announcement next week, which, we understand will include a welcome increase in funds for the health service, some money needs to be made available for this winter. If that money is not made available, some people will be turned away from hospital doors and told that they cannot be treated, waiting lists will increase and there may well be tragedies that certainly should not happen.
  I should like to add a postscript to that. It must be a long-term objective of the health service, if not a short-term objective—long-term should mean a few years rather than just a few months—to arrive at a situation in which we do not have mixed wards. Beyond that, we should aim to have no wards. Hon. Members may not be aware that in America—a country that we often castigate for having a lousy health service—wards have not been known for 40 years. Everybody has their own room, whether they are on Medicare or Medicaid or go through the insurance-funded system. We must move towards this more civilised system for acute treatment.

  1023
  I have a second specific issue on which I should be grateful for an answer. A reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), to a written question from me published in today's Hansard, contains the most extraordinary figure, revealing that the national health service needs £2.4 billion for its repair backlog. That is the Government's figure. It has increased by 40 per cent. in the past five years. The backlog in one region—Trent—has doubled in that period from £102 million to £200 million. While pursuing the private finance initiative, the Government have left a lot of hospital stock to rot where it stands. We need a significant amount of money to begin to catch up with the NHS repair backlog. That is an unacceptable situation, meaning that many places have poor buildings that are not likely to be replaced in the near future.
  I should now like to make one regional point and one south London point. It is clear that London health authorities will have acute deficit problems this year and next. East London and The City health authority—hon. Members from that area are present today—and Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority have significant projected deficits of up to £17 million. My local health authority, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham—it is also the local health authority of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who speaks for the Labour party on health—has a projected deficit of £19 million for next year. I think that the hon. Lady agrees that it would be unacceptable for our health authority, serving the second most deprived area in the country, to have a settlement that forced it to cut £18.8 million out of next year's budget. That cannot be done without significant adverse effects. I have it in writing that the maximum waiting times for routine in-patient and day care treatment for our residents have already increased, as the hon. Lady knows, from 12 months to 18 months. They are likely to increase further. Those waiting times will not go up to the same extent for the patients of fundholding GPs, who have the advantage that that part of the two-tier system delivers.
  I have a plea. This is not a partisan point; it is a view informed by professionals who work for the health authorities. We cannot sustain the present level of service on the present level of funding. The Government must come up with more money. That is the most important issue that we should be concerned about.
  I am also concerned that the health service is becoming increasingly fractured as a result of breaking everything down to trusts and health authorities. The best example of that is locally negotiated pay. People no longer feel that they are part of the NHS if they have to negotiate locally. It is also inefficient, costing probably as much as £40 million or £50 million extra a year because professionals have to stop their radiography or physiotherapy to attend local pay negotiations.
  There is clearly a lack of regional strategy. The health service would be on a much more secure footing if we had proper, democratically elected regional health authorities that could plan strategy, rather than competition between one provider and another.
  I believe that the Secretary of State and Ministers accept that there is, in effect, a two-tier health service. There is a difference between those who go through the
  1024
  GP fundholding route and those who do not. Providers need to advantage GP fundholders' patients in many cases because otherwise that business might go elsewhere. They are less concerned about favouring the large bulk contracts from the local health authority. Patients of fundholders therefore jump the queue. That is not a fair system. If the principles enunciated by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, and by the current Secretary of State — principles that are also contained in the wording of the Government amendment —are to be upheld, equality of access must mean equality of access and must not depend on a patient's GP.
  The final aspect of the health service that is clearly not working is the time spent on the bureaucracy of the annual contracting round. I was interested and grateful to hear the Secretary of State say that he was willing to consider moving to longer-term contracts. I hope that we can persuade the Government that it would be better for three-year contracts between purchaser and provider to be the norm. Obviously, there must be adjustments year on year, but the substantive contract should be for three years, not one year. It may even be possible to have longer contracts. That change, together with national rather than local pay negotiations, could save significant amounts of money.
  I have one other short point to make before my concluding remarks. One priority identified in "The Health of the Nation"—there is no dispute on this and it is not a party political matter—is that we should put more emphasis on mental health services. In some areas, it is very difficult to receive treatment for mental health needs in the community or in hospital. In the same way that justice delayed is justice denied, care delayed can often be care denied or care altogether too late. We must put mental health in the same league as physical health. We are all as likely to be as vulnerable to a failure of one as we are to that of the other. That should not be a matter for dispute.
  What would the public like to hear from politicians as a result of today's debate, next week's Budget and the forthcoming general election? I think that they would like a year-on-year commitment to keep up with real terms spending. The Secretary of State was honest when he said that the increase was to keep pace with inflation. It is not true that there is not differential inflation in the NHS. There is. It is also true that it has been greater in the recent past. It may not always be greater—it has been coming down—but we cannot claim to make a commitment to real terms growth if that commitment is not to real terms growth in the health service, should that be greater than inflation. On the Chancellor's Red Book projections, unless there is significantly more money next year, we shall go below a real terms increase for the first time since 1979.
  We also need, if humanly possible, to halt the closures resulting from the short-term cuts this year and next year. Those finance-driven closures—they are not strategically planned—of beds, wards, hospitals and clinics must be prevented. The only way to do so is to find the funds so that health authorities do not need to save the money by closing facilities.
  We need more staff in the NHS. As a party, we are happy to pledge £200 million a year. which would buy the equivalent of 10,000 nurses or 5,000 doctors. We desperately need them. In parts of the country, the service is crying out for general practitioners and in some places it cannot get nurses or midwives. We should aim to reduce

  1025
  waiting lists to six months within three years. It is achievable, but more resources are necessary—probably about £150 million a year. We have made that commitment.
  Finally, as well as preventive measures such as restoring free eye and dental checks, which we should never have taken away and which can be funded by putting extra tax on tobacco and cigarettes, which we support, we have to make a commitment to ensuring enough general funding for the health service. It is no good relying on bureaucracy savings. Of course, there can always be savings on bureaucracy, but those are not enough.
  On behalf of my colleagues and the majority of the people, I must make what might be my last plea to the Government before the Budget. They should renounce the tempting, pre-election bribe of, "Let's cut taxes." I am sure that the public want a fair tax system, with higher earners paying more to fund the public services.
  As for the Labour party, I am sad that Labour Members make it a tale of some sound and a little fury, signifying almost no coherent policy and almost no funding. They have offered no answers to any of the funding questions. If they want to be credible before the election, they have to persuade the shadow Chancellor to put his money where their foot is—in their mouths. The Labour party needs to make some proper financial commitment to the health service, or it will be justifying the fears of Nye Bevan. He may have anticipated that the Labour party would not necessarily be able to guarantee the funding that the health service needs.
  The public want us to make commitments across the Floor of the House. I welcome the Government's commitments, as far as they have gone—they must go further. The Labour party has to start to show what it is made of.
  6.22 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: First, I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his White Paper, "A Service with Ambitions". Like the chairman of the British Medical Association council, Dr. Sandy Macara, I welcome the document as a commitment by the Government to the continuation and development of a comprehensive and truly national health service. It is appropriate that, following the implementation of the reforms of the early 1990s, a focus is given to delivering a better quality of NHS care year after year, and I am sure that we would all endorse the Government's far-reaching ambitions for the national health service and the steps that they believe must be taken if they are to be achieved.
  I also want to place on record a welcome for the Prime Minister's health guarantee, which he gave at this year's Conservative party conference, when he pledged that the next Conservative Government would increase the real resources available to the NHS every year for the five years of the next Parliament. I therefore believe that, under a Conservative Government, the NHS can look forward to an excellent future.
  Unfortunately, when I intervened on the Leader of the Opposition during the debate on the Queen's Speech a few weeks ago, inviting him to match the Prime Minister's pledge, he refused to do so. Not only that, but it would appear that the Labour party is unable to give any policy commitments, either.
  1026
  I have listened carefully to the contributions to the debate and I fear that the Opposition parties seem to prefer always to give the impression that the national health service is terrible, that patients are being neglected and ignored, and that there is always a crisis around the corner. That is a slur on all those who are working within the health service.
  A few months ago, I conducted a survey in my constituency and found that, of those who responded to the 38,000 questionnaires circulated, just under 80 per cent. treated by the NHS within the past two years were either satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment. Of those who were dissatisfied, the complaints were mostly minor, and have since been addressed. Over and over again, the high quality of care was remarked upon.
  One reason is that there is no doubt that East Hertfordshire NHS trust, which serves my constituents, has progressed enormously since achieving trust status in April 1992. Its substantial achievements in patient services during that time exemplify the sort of developments throughout the country in recent years.
  I have drawn attention in the House to the notable advances in acute hospital care that have benefited patients in east Hertfordshire as a result of the NHS reforms, which enabled local doctors, nurses and managers to meet health care needs swiftly, flexibly and with outstanding value for money. That increased ability to respond puts the NHS in a strong position to face the pressures of current demands.
  It is undeniable that hospital services are under pressure, but nor can it be denied that the NHS has always worked under pressure, from its earliest days. As the demands on our health service have increased, so too have the ability and determination of our health workers to meet those demands. They are supported in this by the substantial improvements that the Government have made in the structure of our national health service—for example, the enormous advances in community health services in the past few years. Whether run by family doctors or by community trusts, community health services are vital to everyone. They are the services to which we all need access more frequently than any other.
  In east Hertfordshire, we are fortunate to have a network of general practitioners who have used the freedoms and opportunities given them by recent legislation to provide vastly improved patient services. New and enlarged premises now give space and facilities for hospital consultants to come away from the large district general hospitals to see patients in their neighbourhoods.
  Patients can see their hospital specialists in the familiar surroundings of their family doctors' surgery, close to home, at a time that fits in with their work and family commitments. They receive quick assessment, with the confidence that more comprehensive treatment will be made available to them back at the general hospital if it is needed.
  GP fundholders have used the flexibility of holding their own budgets to pay for those services direct, as their patients require them. Many family doctors are also using their new potential to offer minor surgery and diagnostic facilities in their premises.
  Since the inception of fundholding in 1991—for example, at the Stockwell Lodge medical centre in Cheshunt in my constituency—the level of secondary care

  1027
  delivered in a primary care setting has gradually increased such that, at present, each month 20 new clinics are provided on the site in the specialties of general medicine, general surgery with two consultants, gynaecology, orthopaedics with two consultants, ear, nose and throat, psychiatry, psychology, dermatology, counselling, and ophthalmology. There are also six minor surgery lists, with four audiometry sessions, one coloscopy session and four ultrasound sessions.
  That has all been achieved with a minimum saving of £250,000 in the year 1995–96, which is subject to review, with further considerable savings forecast in the next 24 months. The secondary benefits include shorter waiting times for all patients, fundholding and non-fundholding; the provision of services in an acceptable location; better communication between primary and secondary care doctors; and greater patient and doctor satisfaction.
  In east Hertfordshire, the trust hospital and community services work closely with local family doctors to deliver those improvements. The continuing advances in the trust's community services are a further indication of the benefits that patients now enjoy on a daily basis.
  For example, I was recently delighted to open the newly refurbished Waltham Cross community clinic, which represents a significant development in community services for people in my constituency and in east Hertfordshire. A clinic has been on the site, providing a range of services for local people, since 1938, but the major new development will enable patients to obtain a wider, more diverse range of services than before.
  Services available include a multi-disciplinary child assessment team with a speech and language therapist; a consultant community paediatrician; and a physiotherapist and occupational therapist who will visit the clinic weekly. Audiology, family planning, chiropody, continence, dental, orthoptic, ante-natal and post-natal services are also available.
  The clinic is one of the many community units being developed throughout Britain as our health services meet the challenge of the primary-care-led NHS. Local access is essential, especially for the elderly, the disabled, families with young children and those with mental health problems, for all of whom a long journey to a distant district general hospital is daunting and difficult, if not impossible. The clinic and others like it ensure that health care is much more easily accessible to all.
  The Waltham Cross clinic scheme was approved in 1994, with money from the North Thames region that forms but a small part of the £40 billion spent on health services in the past year. Improvements in community services result not only from better premises but from a host of advances that the Government's initiatives are helping to create.
  Further examples of benefits are listed in East Hertfordshire NHS trust's recent application for charter mark status—itself a reaffirmation of the Government's policy to provide objective analysis of achievements in public service.
  Those benefits include the introduction of a maximum 15-minute wait for out-patient appointments in community clinics; Saturday clinics for working parents
  1028
  who are unable to attend during the week; the introduction of a night nursing service; and an improved wheelchair service that will provide at the assessment clinic routine chairs that patients will be able to take away, thus providing an immediate benefit from visiting the clinic, before the customised wheelchair is delivered by the approved supplier within five to 10 days.
  Among the further benefits listed are improved car parking, with facilities for wheelchair users and the provision of outside covered pram shelters and safety gates for small children; an improvement in the range of information available on a wide range of health issues; the introduction of a user committee to ensure that patients and their carers can contribute to the scrutiny and development of community services; a standard policy that, whenever possible, the needs of patients are given top priority and staff are encouraged to arrange appointments and visits that minimise disruption; and, finally, the development of a community child protection team, based in a community clinic to facilitate access for all staff and clients using the service.
  There are examples throughout the country of the genuine benefits experienced by patients as a result of the Government's initiatives to improve the national health service. All those benefits have been achieved cost-effectively, with key improvements directed to patients' needs. In east Hertfordshire, benchmarking reviews show that all the improvements have taken place in an area where staff numbers are lower than average, but total patient contacts higher.
  East Hertfordshire NHS trust is an outstanding example of how the Government's reforms, put properly into practice, can daily provide genuine improvements for patients.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the good news club that has been formed by some Conservatives. It seems that every Conservative Member who has spoken today has been a member of that club, because the national health service they talk about is not the NHS that I recognise. The only time they talk about anything bad is when it is something that happened in 1975.
  I remind those hon. Members that 1975 was 21 years ago; many of the people who will be voting at the next general election had not even been born then. Even if I accepted their criticisms about what happened in 1975—which I do not—I would have to tell them that it was a different health service then, at a different time, with different needs and different economic circumstances.
  In the 21 years since 1975, we have had 17 years of the Conservatives in office. If the news is all good, why do we still have 1 million people on the waiting list, year after year? Why have 250,000 people been on the waiting list for more than six months? Why, last year alone, did almost 55,000 people effectively have their operations cancelled at the last moment? Nobody can tell me that that is good news.
  I do not want to bandy national statistics with the Minister, because, whatever statistic anyone mentions, he will find a different one. The Minister is obviously a proponent of the idea that there are three types of mathematician: those that can count, and those that cannot. The penny will drop in a minute.

  1029
  I want to talk about the reality of what is happening locally in my patch. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) talked about how trusts could respond quickly to events. He is right, and I know a good example of how they respond quickly—an article in my local paper, saying:
  "Cash crisis axes more ops … City Hospital and QMC' —
  Queen's medical centre—
  "are forced to postpone routine operations".
  That is how they act quickly, because they are running out of money.
  For November and December alone, the Queen's medical centre has postponed 350 operations that people were expecting. The city council has stopped all routine, non-emergency operations, because more emergency operations are needed than it thought, and it has effectively no contingency in its budget to meet the demand.
  Unless there is extra money for Nottingham health authority, it is predicted that next year no medical equipment will be replaced. Plans to introduce the latest treatments and develop breast cancer services will be dropped. The waiting list for routine operations will grow even more. All high-cost treatments will have to be restricted. National standards for the ambulance service will not be met. There will be no contingency plans, because there will be no contingency fund; there will be no money.
  The Minister may think I exaggerate, but these are not my predictions but those of the chairman of the Nottingham health authority, Sir David White, who is not a noted socialist. He was knighted by the Government. He is one of the kings of the quangos. The Government not only think that he is good enough to chair the health authority; he is on almost every conceivable quango for the Nottingham area. He is not noted for his criticism of the Government. However, he is publicly saying that all those things will happen next year. He says that part of the reason is that Nottingham has been underfunded for many years. It is funded at 97 per cent. of the average, when, because it is a teaching district, it should be funded at more than 100 per cent. The gap between 97 and 100 per cent. funding is £11 million.
  The confusion in the Government about how to deal with the problem is interesting. In February, the Secretary of State agreed that there was underfunding, although of £9 million rather than £11 million. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who has since become the Minister responsible for the Nottingham area, said that the underfunding dated back to the 1960s, and could not be solved overnight. I did not expect anyone to solve it overnight, but if it dates back to the 1960s, I should have thought that the Government might have tried to tackle it in the years since 1979.
  That was not the end of the story. Only weeks later, the Prime Minister contradicted the hon. Member for Gedling, and said that there was no underfunding. He said that the health authority had made it up so that it could bid for more money. Within a week of the Prime Minister contradicting the hon. Member for Gedling, a junior Health Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), said that there was underfunding, and that there was a battle to address a £7 million deficit this year. Finally, the Secretary of State agreed on 12 November
  1030
  that there was underfunding, and gave a hint that some more money might be made available to the people of Nottinghamshire.
  That is all well and good, but how am I to tackle the letters I get from people who have been told they cannot have operations? I want to be able to tell them who is responsible for the failure to give the public the service that they deserve. Who is responsible for ensuring that patients get treated and for looking after the sick? Should I tell them that it is the Government and the way that their policies have changed the health service that has put those people in that position?
  Should I say that the health authority or the trusts have handled it badly? I have some difficulty with that, because many of the people on the health authority and the trusts are Tory placemen. They are guilty only of doing what the Government want—and doing it with enthusiasm. It is difficult to blame them entirely for the problem. The blame rests fairly and squarely with the Government.
  If underfunding, which we have had since 1960, is the only problem that has caused the crisis in Nottingham, why have we not faced such a crisis before? Underfunding may be part of the problem but the real problem has more to do with the changes that the Government have made: the internal market and the growth of bureaucracy. The Government talk about increasing spending year year on year, but £1.5 billion is being spent, year on year on year, on extra bureaucracy. That money must come from somewhere, and it comes from services.
  There are fewer doctors and nurses and more accountants and managers. Last year alone, there were pay rises of 18.5 per cent. for senior managers, while for nurses the figure was only 3 per cent. Many people in the health authorities and trusts have watched things going wrong for some time and have not spoken out.
  That is what I accuse them of. They are guilty of complicity, of not making criticisms. They have not been willing to speak out until now. The hon. Member for Gedling said that the present position had not been reached overnight. It has been known about for years, and the authority managed to survive because of the reserves it built up before the Government made their changes.
  One group that I do not want to criticise is health service staff. The nurses, doctors, auxiliary staff and ambulance drivers deserve praise, not criticism, because they have been putting off the crisis, and they are still putting it off in many hospitals. They have kept the NHS as good as it is—despite, not because of, the Government. The staff will have to bear the consequences of the failure of the Government, the health authority and the trusts. The financial pressures on Queen's medical centre, which is running a £1.6 million deficit, mean that staff have been told that, because the centre's budget is 70 per cent. of costs, many of them may be made redundant. Many people who should be rewarded are suffering.
  I have one more point on the local situation. I have tried to keep off the national situation, which other hon. Members understand better. Part of the reason for the present crisis is the Government's private finance initiative. It has been developed in such a way that short-term financial gains can be made, but only with long-term financial consequences. It is selling off the family silver.
  For example, on 7 December last year, Nottingham health authority opened its refurbished headquarters, at a cost of £4 million. I think that it was opened by the

  1031
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. I objected that I was not sure that that was a good way to spend money when other services were under threat. It is on Standard hill, an historic site in the centre of Nottingham. I did not know that the authority already had plans to sell it. I was amazed after the grand opening to find that out, not from the health authority but from a leak.
  I asked the chairman of the health authority why the public did not know anything about it. He said, "You should know about it, because it is in the public domain." I then asked to see the discussions in the minutes of the multi-million pound deal to sell the headquarters building, the staff, fixtures and fittings, and then rent them back. But those matters had not been discussed. The massive deal did not appear anywhere on the health authority's public agenda, although it had been in process for more than a year.
  The deal was only placed in the public domain through an advertisement in the Estates Gazette. My constituents do not spend their time browsing through that gazette to see whether the health authority is planning to sell buildings for £4 million or £5 million—the story is that it is to be sold for £4 million. If £4 million is spent on refurbishing something that is then sold for £4 million, it is being given away. The public in Nottingham have a right to object to that, but they cannot object, because they do not know about it.
  I am amazed that, when the Government drafted new guidelines to ensure greater openness in the NHS, they said—in the annual report for 1994–95:
  "In its turn, accountability demands openness. Adding to existing codes of conduct and accountability, a new code of practice on openness for the NHS was published in April 1995. Its key principle is that information should be publicly available unless there is a good reason for confidentiality."
  It continues to outline what people are expected to do under the code of practice.
  When I was questioning the chairman of the health authority, he told me that lawyers had been brought in to see how little he could tell me. He said that he could tell me everything that was happening, as long as I made a vow of confidence and did not let the public know.
  What is the Minister going to do to enforce his code of practice on openness and accountability? The chairman of the health authority has effectively told me that he is accountable to no one but the Secretary of State. I do not believe that; I believe that he is also accountable to the people of Nottingham—and to me.
  Unless the people of Nottingham are told what is happening in relation to the private finance initiative, that accountability does not exist. The Government have turned the PFI on its head: and it has become the public finance initiative. The public sector chips in £4 million, which can then be passed over to a private company with no risk. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will say what he plans to do about that.
  It has become apparent in Nottingham that the trusts and the health authority try to operate no longer as services to the community, but as businesses. The board members are business people. I have no objection to trying to run things efficiently, effectively or cost-effectively, but the health authority and the trust need members who understand people's needs and not simply how to balance books.
  6.53 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: The debate has been interesting—each hon. Member has naturally referred to his or her part of the United Kingdom. I have been left with the impression that Conservative Members are saying that everything is grand and good, while Opposition Members are saying that everything is bad and wrong. To be honest, I do not think that what either side is saying is strictly true: everything in the health service is not good, but nor is it bad.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that we should speak about a common health service and its common ownership. As has been said, the NHS—and its record over the years—of which we in the House are rightly proud, is not the property of any one political party, but of the nation. We must therefore be careful not to overstate the case on either side of the argument. Right hon. and hon. Members should express their constituents' feelings and concerns about something that is near and dear to their heart.
  The public rightly wants value for money. No one can excuse inefficiency in any public service—inefficiency is unacceptable. Cost-effectiveness is appropriate and proper, whether it be in the health service or any other community service. The people of Northern Ireland—a part of the United Kingdom—believe that the NHS is in crisis. Owing to lack of finances for capital and revenue costs, we face difficult times, especially as we approach the winter months.
  I am not trying to make a party-political point. Amendment (b) states that the following words should be added to the motion:
  "and regrets that the official Opposition is proposing almost no extra funding for the NHS."
  While I agree with much of the motion, which expresses many of the concerns that I hear from my constituents—it is right that those worries should be expressed on the Floor of the House—I do not believe that any credible political party can say that it condemns what another party is doing unless it says that it will make more funds available to the NHS. There have been White Papers, major documents, consultation documents and charter marks—all intended to improve the service—but there have to be follow-up finances.
  There was a direct shift of policy in Northern Ireland designed to put care back into the community. I do not argue with that concept as I believe that people should be kept in the community for as long as possible. But although that policy has been introduced, arrangements and finances for the changeover have not been made available. The change from the use of institutions to placing people in the community—there was a dramatic change in the number of mental health beds in the Province and people were encouraged to go back into the community—cannot be made without appropriate preparation for such a move. Neither appropriate preparation nor sufficient finances were made available for that move.
  We are proud of our NHS. I join other right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating those who work in it on their commitment—their service and high-quality care to the community is beyond reproach. But it would be wrong to suggest that there are no problems. My constituents tell me daily about their genuine problems and concerns at

  1033
  what is happening: they see a change in the health service. Many of our elderly people feel concerned and forsaken. They believed that the health service would be there for them, whenever it was needed. When they were helping to build the service, as many of them did, they believed that they would be looked after in their old age.
  I am greatly concerned that many doctors are anxious about the fact that, no sooner has a patient been in hospital for a few days, they are handed brochures for nursing homes to help them to choose to which one they should go. Homes are touting for business. I have no objection to nursing homes—they provide a service that the people need—but many of our elderly people are concerned about that. Many people who have worked all their lives and tried to save a few pounds for their old age are now finding that, when they are put into nursing homes, most of their savings are used up. Those concerns are widely felt in my constituency.
  Many of the farms in my constituency are small, family farms that have been handed down for generations. The farmers do not consider that they own those farms, but that the farms have been lent to them for the period of time that they are on this earth, to be passed on to the next generation. Now, however, when many elderly people enter nursing homes, their farms have to be sold, which has caused a change in the make-up of the community. The elderly are right to express their concerns to us, as their elected representatives, and, as such, it is right that we express those concerns in the Chamber tonight to the Minister concerned.
  The Minister with responsibility for health services in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), sent out a document stating that there had to be a 3 per cent. cut for three consecutive years, starting this year. Half of that—1.5 per cent.—is demanded from cuts and savings in administration; but the other 1.5 per cent. will come directly from the service to the people.
  To be fair to the Under-Secretary, I have to say that he is the first Minister who has come out and stated that to be a fact. Every other Minister would cover it up and say, "No, no, no. There are no real cuts—we are looking for those 3 per cent. cuts, but it will not affect the service." At least this Minister had the honesty to state openly that savings were being sought in the service. Although I am prepared to give him full credit for his honesty, it does not alleviate my concern about the effect of the cuts on the community.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was an Adjournment debate today, in which was highlighted the case of a hospital that five successive Ministers for health promised would be built in the Causeway to serve the region of north Antrim and east Londonderry. That project is now in doubt and, although £10 million has already been spent on the scheme, it is now questionable whether it will ever be completed. Surely that should set the alarm bells ringing.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—that case causes me great concern. I have been a member of several delegations and deputations to the Minister in respect of that hospital. The Minister promised us, with hand on heart, that the hospital would be built and that, therefore, the moneys that had already
  1034
  been spent would not be lost. I should be greatly concerned to learn that it is now being suggested that all those Ministers' promises down the years have been nothing more than hot air and are meaningless.
  There is an urgent need for a Causeway hospital in Coleraine to serve that wide area. A hospital was taken away from Ballymena, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and the people were promised that the area around Coleraine and Portrush would be served by a modern, up-to-date hospital. The Minister cannot get away with reneging on a promise that he has made and that successive Ministers have consistently made to the community.
  Those year-on-year 3 per cent. cuts will eat into the very heart of health service provision to the community and we must not permit them to happen. Although the Government, perhaps with the forthcoming election in mind, have suggested that more money will be made available on the mainland—perhaps as much as £300 million will be released for the health service here—the truth is that no extra finance is coming to the Province. Therefore, the 1.5 per cent. direct cut in the service will certainly be felt by the community. We face the closure of homes for the elderly and cuts in the home-help service. That is a crying shame and the community is deeply concerned at the lack of resources.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the hon. Gentleman in the two points that he has made. First, as an English Member of Parliament, I say that it would be completely unfair if the additional money for the health service that has been announced by the Chancellor and by the Secretary of State for Health was not shared throughout the United Kingdom on an equal basis. Secondly, we cannot continue to have an arbitrary percentage cut in the budget year on year imposed simply in the name of efficiency, without any explanation or justification. The Government cannot set a target without explaining it. If the health service needs more money, it needs more money even if it also has to strive continually to be efficient.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, it is sadly true that none of the tranche of money that has been announced will go to Northern Ireland. Secondly, as the Minister has openly stated, half of that 3 per cent. cut—1.5 per cent.—will directly hurt the service that is provided. I wholeheartedly accept the points that the hon. Gentleman made, both in that intervention and in his earlier speech.
  The current system of trusts in the Province has created a level of administration that is unprecedented in any other part of the United Kingdom. In order to enable competition within the service, we have created many businesses—more than 20, serving 1.6 million people and all with their own chief executives, accountants and other administrative staff. We seem to be filling up the health service with an increasing number of senior administrators, who exert a great draw on the available resources, while at the same time the number of staff who actually deliver service to the patients is decreasing, to the detriment of patients in the Province. We need extra nursing staff and doctors in the health service.
  I give the ambulance service in my constituency as an example. Two weeks ago, a newspaper reported that the ambulances going out on emergencies to people suffering

  1035
  cardiac arrest are breaking down because they are years out of date. We can no longer be sure that ambulances will get to those who require urgent hospitalisation. The community is, rightly, concerned. I ask the Minister to encourage the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is now on the Front Bench, to provide the appropriate ambulances for my constituents so that they will get to hospital and receive the treatment they need.
  Many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude. Although in the Province we appreciate the good things—and there are good things—in the health service, we believe that we are confronted with a crisis. We believe that the waiting times of patients requiring urgent hospital treatment and so on need to be attended to, and they cannot be attended to without adequate resources.
  Whatever the governing party, no matter what is said about the national health service, unless the finances are made available we shall never be able to ensure that the national health service maintains the standing that we and our constituents have come to expect.
  I shall listen with care to what other hon. Members, especially from Her Majesty's Opposition, say about their commitment to ensure adequate resources for the health service. For without adequate resources, all the rest will be hot air.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I shall start by contrasting the image presented in the so-called White Paper, "The National Health Service: A Service with Ambitions", with the reality, especially as seen by a Member representing a Leeds constituency.
  As its title suggests, the White Paper portrays the national health service as the Government would like it to be, not as it is. If the comprehensive health service in Leeds—the trusts, the health authority in its purchasing role and the Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust—were to receive £1 million for every time that the words "should", "could" or "needs to be" appear in that document, the health service in Leeds would be doing very well indeed. Sadly, the truth is rather different.
  In their paper, the Government have postulated a health service in which their reforms are achieving what it is or was claimed that they would achieve. Perhaps if that were the case, the "ambitions" of the White Paper could be realised; but when examined in the real world, which is very different from the glossy aspirations, which reflect more hope than expectation, it becomes plain that the NHS reforms are not working, and that the proliferation of bureaucracy, which other hon. Members have spoken about, and the basic underfunding, which I want to speak about, have combined to the worst possible effect. That is evident in Leeds.
  The Government themselves obviously believe that the NHS is underfunded. The uncosted promise made by the Prime Minister at this year's Tory party conference shows that they are at least conscious of the need for an increase in funding. But what are the public to make of an ambition to increase spending in real terms "year on year" which is conditional on what is described as a "growing economy" when the same Government are now telling the
  1036
  British people that a series of Labour aspirations—no more than wishes—add up to £30 billion of spending commitments?
  I am dismayed by the attitude of the Minister and the approach of the Government, and of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, who expects commitments to be treated in the way in which the Express today talked about things that were desirable as resources allowed. Understandably, it is very difficult for members of the Labour party to offer spending commitments when their wishes are so misused by the Government in their propaganda and by other parties. We are embarked on a process in which electioneering of the lowest possible kind is becoming an everyday fact of life.
  Given that process, and given this morning's publicity, I believe that the Prime Minister's vague NHS spending pledge should be regarded as having all the veracity of the White Paper's "ambitions".
  I want to talk about the health services in Leeds. I believe that, by doing so, I shall shed light on the fictitious examples of best practice that the White Paper says should occur everywhere, revealing them as hollow. In the Leeds area, there are many skilled hospital and medical staff who share the Government's ambitions but strongly disagree with the chosen means of achieving them. I believe in being fair, so I shall mention some good aspects of the service in Leeds.
  I have visited and spent time in the paediatric intensive care unit in the Leeds general infirmary, headed by Dr. Mark Darowski. It is an extremely good service, providing the best paediatric intensive care in the region. It is true that its skilled staff should, in the language of the White Paper, be able to meet the needs of the area, but that is a matter for the Government. They certainly did not do so last winter, and the changes that have come about or are coming about as we approach this winter will not enable them to meet those needs, despite the Secretary of State's promise in a statement to the House.
  The community mental health day facility in Leeds has some longer-term beds, but it is run by the Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust. It was a great pleasure to open a facility in Middleton in my constituency. It must be able to meet fully the needs of the community that it is intended to serve, but the Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust, like the other parts of the Leeds service, is in deficit.
  To surprise the Minister, let me pick out a welcome development. A GP fundholding practice in my constituency is building a day facility for people in Morley. It will not carry out large day surgery operations but it will do some things that will save people going to Leeds. In view of transport costs, I welcome that facility.
  However, I very much hope that—as I am sure is the intention of those who are carrying out the development—the facility is available to all patients. If it were available only to people who happen to be patients of fundholding practices, it would emphasise the inequity in the system. I hope that, with the co-operation of the health authority and Her Majesty's Government, that facility can be made available for use by every general practitioner in Morley, as it would be under a local commissioning system that the Labour party would introduce.

  1037
  I am not saying that good things are not happening; they are, but in each case there are flaws in the current system. The fundamental flaw is that, as the Secretary of State well knows, Leeds is grossly underfunded. Leeds general infirmary, the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, has a large deficit. I have been told that the trust's deficit is between £5 million and £11 million; I believe that it is nearer to £11 million.
  The chief executive of the trust is one of the few chief executives with a salary of more than £100,000 a year. Running a facility like that, which the Government regard as a business, is obviously a highly responsible job, but the salary may be excessive, given the trust's deficit. I would expect the Minister to agree with me about that.
  St. James's hospital, too, is suffering from a massive shortfall in funding and is in debt to the tune of between £2 million and £6 million. The Secretary of State knows the problems of Leeds very well because my fellow Labour Leeds Members of Parliament and I visited him some time ago to stress the difficulties being faced. We were encouraged to do so by the Leeds health authority, which also faces a considerable deficit and cannot purchase as it would want to.
  In Leeds, all the bodies set up by the Government's reforms are in deficit, so the Leeds hospital service faces something of a crisis. When we spoke to him, the Secretary of State agreed to facilitate a meeting between the community health council—it also feels strongly about the shortage of funding—and the Minister. Representatives spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). As a result of those discussions, however, no new money has been promised to Leeds. I am not talking about new money for the distant future; I am talking about money that is needed now, for this winter.
  Leeds general infirmary was exercised—so were Ministers—about the two patients who were relatives and who both died on trolleys waiting for treatment at the infirmary. One of them had waited for eight hours before dying, the other had waited five hours. It is pure coincidence that they happened to be brother and sister. Leeds general infirmary soon realised that it needed more space for intensive care beds, but it can achieve that only at the expense of cutting 40 beds in the gynaecological unit. That work, too, is important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) drew attention to the fact that the number of bureaucrats has been increasing in the service every year while the number of beds in hospitals has declined. It is certainly a priority to increase the number of intensive care beds, but surely not at the expense of 40 other beds. The trust should not have to make that choice.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State about the paediatric intensive care unit, which lacked the space for more than the five beds which it had been granted. It was then granted a sixth bed—which seems to represent an increase of one, but the space remains the same. Last winter, when there was a crisis, six beds were put into the same space. Now that the unit officially possesses six beds, perhaps a little more money will be forthcoming to staff it. It is a first-rate facility offering skilled treatment. That, after all, is why Nicholas Geldart was sent in the direction of Leeds. But a skilled facility needs enough space in which to operate. I therefore look forward to hearing that the intensive care unit will receive the funding for the extra beds that have been promised to the region: that is essential.
  1038
  It is instructive to look at real cases, as opposed to the fictional cases offered us in the White Paper. When asked whether those cases were fictional, the Department of Health described them as composites of what they hoped future cases treated by the service would look like. I should like to describe some waiting list cases from the real world.
  A woman of 93 suffered from a cataract, and her neighbour brought her to see me. She had to wait two years before even being seen, so between age 93 and 95 her vision would remain badly impaired. I am glad to say that because I wrote to the chief executive she was rapidly treated. It should not however be necessary for a woman of 93 to be put in touch with her Member of Parliament for action to be taken. A person who obviously needs treatment right away should be dealt with right away.
  Another case that has come to my knowledge concerns a patient whose need to be seen was less urgent. When he came to see me, he had been told that he was on a waiting list of 108 weeks. I wrote to the chief executive of St. James's and Seacroft hospitals, who answered me as follows:
  "On a more general note, at present the orthopaedic service receives more referrals than we are currently able to deal with. This is not a new problem and we are working closely with our major purchaser, Leeds Health Authority, to reduce the waiting times for first appointment. We have 250 patients waiting to be seen for the first time in the orthopaedic out-patient department … The length of time these patients wait varies very considerably, often depending on their clinical need. Once these patients have been seen, if the decision is taken to place them on the in-patient waiting list, again the length of waiting time varies. We achieve the Patient's Charter standard of no waiting longer than 12 months".
  So having waited two years and two months for his first appointment, my constituent faces another 12 months of waiting for treatment.
  Before closing I want to mention the Leeds radiology service. I have written to the Secretary of State about the service run by the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals trust. I was referred to the chairman of the trust, to whom I suggested that people were not being treated on time. Referring to a recommendation from the Royal College of Radiologists, he said:
  "We acknowledge this recommendation … but due to inadequate capital resourcing our ability to start radiotherapy when clinician/clinically required is about four weeks longer than we would wish for some categories of breast patient."
  It is not good enough to have to wait an extra four weeks—and all for lack of at least one new linear accelerator. We cannot wait for it to come; people are waiting longer than they should for the crucial first treatment that will enhance their survival chances.
  It is, I contend, immoral to spend taxpayers' money on producing thousands of copies of a glossy, 60-page White Paper that presents an idealised account of what the health service could be with no concrete explanation of how to get there, in Leeds or anywhere else. The answer of course is more money. I also believe it wrong to involve civil servants in the preparation of a document that is totally bereft of practical policy. It is no more than a treading-water exercise, six months short of an election, conducted at great public expense to enhance the electoral

  1039
  prospects of the Government—and the career prospects of some of its members. What the White Paper will not do, however, is benefit any member of the public who takes it, as intended, at face value.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: I apologise for not having been present for much of the debate, but I have been serving on a Standing Committee in which no pairing is allowed. Secondly, I declare an interest as an adviser to the Ivax Corporation and to the Western Provident Association, a non-profit-making body.
  A few weeks ago my mother was seriously ill. She was immediately taken to the Royal Aberdeen infirmary where she was given the finest treatment imaginable. She is not exceptional: millions of other people are treated well by the national health service. We can all shroud-wave if we want to: we all know of constituency examples involving absurdities, bad management or the stupidity that one expects from any bureaucracy—but those are the exceptions, not the rule. The majority of people in Britain get a darned good service from the national health service.
  I am fed up with being defensive about the health service. We should be proud of the achievements over the past few years: the fact that the health service is growing by 3 per cent. per year; the fact that productivity has increased by 40 per cent.; the fact that we are spending more money above inflation than ever before; the fact that, despite all the upheavals of the reforms that were necessary, we are treating 1 million more people than ever before and the waiting lists are at their lowest level since records began.
  People would have laughed in our faces if, 10 years ago, we had given guarantees—in so far as guarantees are possible in any bureaucracy—that there would be treatment or an operation within a set period, as the patients charter requires. Yet it works—and, by and large, it works pretty well.
  Earlier in the debate I challenged the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about an article that appeared in The Independent entitled, "Is the NHS safe under Dr Blair's team?" The sub-heading states:
  "The Opposition's once distinctive stance on health has dissolved for lack of fresh thinking. Jack O'Sullivan examines a failure that the Tories will exploit in the next general election".
  The article begins:
  "The NHS may be in poor shape, but its condition is nothing like as moribund as Labour's performance on health. After 17 years in opposition, the party no longer has a stance on the NHS that is either distinctive or convincingly deals with the problems that the service faces."
  The Independent is not exactly a Conservative newspaper. The journalist refers to
  "Labour's complacent attitude, which has focused on scoring points in opposition rather than constructing a viable alternative."
  That is precisely what we have heard today. I know that we are in that awful pork-barrel cycle in the run-up to a general election, but Labour's attitude seriously worries the elderly, the frail and the vulnerable. I hope that the Opposition realise how irresponsible their shroud-waving and scare stories are.
  1040
  The article goes on to ask:
  "But what did Labour's opposition amount to? That the NHS needed more cash and that the Tories' changes would lead to privatisation".
  We have heard all that.
  "The message rang true for voters. But it was a cynical tactic because, in reality, Labour offered little alternative to Tory policy, an inadequacy overlooked in the hysteria about funding shortfalls and the supposedly sinister hidden agenda of the Tories."
  The article states that
  "the best that Chris Smith, Labour's new health spokesman, could offer at the party conference was an extra £40 million, gleaned from administrative savings, to cut cancer surgery waiting times."
  The writer reports that a policy document, "New Agenda for Health", was published a few weeks ago by the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research, which states:
  "From where we stand now there will be no significant new public money for health care in the UK".
  That is where Labour stands. I admire the courage of Opposition Members who use the forbidden word—the U word—underfunding. Why do they not tell us how they will match the money that the Government have given to the health service? Why do they not tell us their spending plans? It is not surprising that so many people—
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely what the Government's spending plans are for the next three years?
  Mr. Hayes: It has been made clear what spending on the health service will be. My hon. Friend the Minister will go into great detail later.
  Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us some figures? The Government have not done so. No specific figure has been given for any of the next three years.
  Mr. Hayes: In line with inflation—3 per cent. growth per year, year on year. That is the Government's promise: in line with inflation. They will deliver more money than the health service has ever had before—£42.5 billion.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I am fascinated by the vision of the health service getting richer and richer under the Conservatives. I do not ask the hon. Gentleman for further details relating to south Yorkshire, but Rotherham health authority has to cut last year's budget by £500,000 to £1 million. If all that new money is coming in, why are my constituents getting a worse service? Why is North-East Derbyshire health authority tell GPs that there can be no more elective surgery until the end of the financial year?
  Mr. Hayes: I do not believe for one moment that any constituent is getting a worse service than before the reforms. I cannot give the exact figures to answer the hon. Gentleman's question because I am not an expert on Rotherham, but more cash has gone into his health authority and his national health service trust than ever before. It is up to the people who run those trusts to spend it in the right way.
  Mr. MacShane rose—
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman knows the amount of money that is being poured into the health service. He cannot deny it. He is an honourable, reasonable man. He

  1041
  knows the reality. He is trying to score a few political points, for which I cannot blame him in the run-up to a general election.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury wrote an article in response to the terrible accusations against his policy—I use the word loosely—by The Independent. He stated:
  "But we do want to make changes, because the introduction of the competitive internal market has caused immense damage. It has set hospital against hospital, doctor against doctor."
  One might have thought that there would be a massive policy change, but there will still be the split between the provider and the purchaser. If that split still exists, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that there will not be an internal market? Of course there will be an internal market. That is what has been producing the results and leading to greater efficiency and more patients being treated than ever before.
  The article goes on:
  "Secondly, we envisage the development of a recuperation service, to help people recover from major treatment in a supported environment near to their home, rather than being forced out of hospital too early."
  Have we had any figures for that? Is it an aspiration? Is it an aim? Is it costed? If so, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much it will cost? I will give way to him, if he is listening. That is an important spending commitment. Is it a policy or just an election bribe with no price tag on it?
  The article continues:
  "Fourthly, there is our proposal to use savings from excessive bureaucracy to fund, among other things, a reduction in waiting times for surgery for cancer."
  The hon. Gentleman voted against the Government's plans to reduce bureaucracy. He and his party voted against the abolition of the regional health authorities. He wants to free £100 million from savings on bureaucracy. This year alone the Government have released £300 million, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained.
  The article states:
  "Inequality of income and condition has a major impact on the quality of people's health, and inequality has widened dramatically over these past 17 years. We want to begin to put that right in government."
  We all want to put that right in government, but it is a typical Labour aspiration of motherhood and apple soufflée. It is meaningless. The hon. Gentleman does not tell us how it will be done, or what money will be put into it, because he does not know. The iron shadow Chancellor will not tell him, because he does not know either.
  What are these great policies—this great new Jerusalem—towards which the Opposition are leading us? The issue is not more money for the health service, although that is the issue on which they have fought election after election. It is the battle of the suits. They claim that Labour are better managers than the Tories.
  Mr. MacShane: Yes.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman says yes. He should go around some of the local authorities that are run by Labour. He should come to Harlow, where £1.8 million was lost out of a budget of £12 million and a load of people had to be sacked. That is the sort of management that there would be under Labour. Just look at local government.
  1042
  The Labour party's proposals are delightfully vague. They tell us absolutely nothing.
  Mr. MacShane indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for Rotherham sagely shakes his head, because he knows that the moment any spending plan is brought before the electorate and the House my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will explain to the people where it is to come from.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman endorse Labour's policy for a windfall tax to put a quarter of a million people back into work?
  Mr. Hayes: Like so many other things, that does not work. The hon. Gentleman is talking about raiding pension funds, about raiding the consumer and about raising energy prices, which will affect the elderly, the frail and the vulnerable. That is what the hon. Gentleman wants to do, but it does not add up—like everything else that we have had from the embattled party on the Opposition Benches, which genuinely believes that it will win the next general election.
  If ever an Opposition motion should have been strangled at birth, it is this one. I beg the House to oppose it.
  7.40 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: Health has been defined by the World Health Organisation as a state of complete physical and mental well-being, not merely the absence of disease. The national health service was established in Northern Ireland in 1948, two years after it was established in Britain. Its purpose was to provide cradle-to-grave care for the entire community. That was nearly 50 years ago. Today there is a crisis in that great service, and there is a crisis in Northern Ireland.
  I have listened carefully to the debate. Of course there are many good things with the national health service. Why would there not be? But that does not mean that there is not a crisis. I speak as a non-fundholding general practitioner who does very little GP work at this time. The main threat to health care provision is the across-the-board efficiency saving of 3 per cent. per annum which has been imposed by Government. It is, of course, Government policy to encourage people to take out private insurance.
  In a recent article in the British Medical Journal, a group of senior medical consultants said that patients' lives were being placed at risk because of the pressure on trusts to make year-on-year efficiency savings of 3 per cent. The consultants said that cash cuts meant that patients were being sent home by hospitals much too soon after surgery. Indeed, in Northern Ireland there are many examples of patients being discharged with undue haste and with limited provision for follow-up care at home.
  Although Northern Ireland receives 11 per cent. more per capita on health expenditure than the average for the United Kingdom, other statistics must be taken into consideration. Northern Ireland suffers 20 per cent. more heart deaths among men than the average in the United Kingdom. That indicates that for that component of the health service we would need an increase in resources of about 20 per cent. Northern Ireland's unemployment rate

  1043
  is 40 per cent. higher than the rest of the United Kingdom. With unemployment comes increased visits to GPs, increased drug prescribing, increased referrals to out-patient departments and increased admissions to hospitals. Those were the words of the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland in her recent report on the health of the people of Northern Ireland.
  In addition to the increased number of heart deaths and the increased numbers in unemployment and poverty, it must be remembered that a quarter of a century of terrorist violence has brought with it increased health needs among our peoples, and that applies very much to both communities.
  In recent weeks, the Prime Minister endowed the Secretary of State for Health—I hesitate to say this, as I have heard other hon. Members mention the figure of £300 million—with additional money for the health service. The Northern Ireland media gave the figure as £500 million. Perhaps that is inaccurate, but it is somewhere around that figure. I understand that not a penny piece of that will be directed to Northern Ireland. Indeed, it appears that it will go to England and Wales. If the first figure is correct, in terms of population it would mean £17.5 million for the health service in Northern Ireland.
  In his statement of 12 February, the Health Minister for Northern Ireland, who was here earlier, said that cuts would not be implemented without reductions in service. I believe that that point was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). I congratulated the Minister at the time on his forthrightness in making that statement. I hope that he will guarantee that additional funding, in real terms, will be made available to deal with the implications of the Children Order. Will additional resources be made available to ensure that health boards can fulfil the commitment in terms of community care, which is required by the Government's legislation?
  Has the Department of Health in Northern Ireland an accurate device to calculate the health needs and resources for health for the people of Northern Ireland in comparison to a base population, for example, that of England and Wales? How can the Minister be sure that resources that have been provided are adequate to meet the health needs of the population in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the increased disease, poverty and unemployment? In its report published on 14 November, the Northern Ireland Audit Office recommended that any review of the capitation formula for funding should aim to ensure that the distribution of funds to purchase treatment matches the identified and prioritised needs of the purchasing authorities.
  Why do we need more resources in Northern Ireland? It is the poorest region in the United Kingdom. I do not think that anyone would argue with that. In Northern Ireland, unemployment stands at 11.1 per cent.—39.8 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average—and 38 per cent. of households live in poverty. Basic essentials cost more in Northern Ireland. For example, electricity prices are 3 per cent. higher. Although we spend 11 per cent. per capita more on the health service than the rest of the UK, our coronary heart disease level is 20 per cent. higher and unemployment is 40 per cent. higher. Long-term unemployment is linked with an increase in
  1044
  the use of prescribed drugs, in consultations with GPs, in the use of hospital services and in the level of physical illness. Those figures come from the 1995 annual report of the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland. All of that inevitably leads to increased demands on the health service in Northern Ireland.
  What do the health cuts mean to the people of Northern Ireland? They mean that home help services are being cut, a reduction in meals on wheels, a reduction in key staff in the community such as social workers, community psychiatric nurses and day centre staff. I pay tribute to the people involved in primary health care, having been involved in it myself for 35 years in west Belfast. The cuts mean waiting lists for funding for domiciliary care packages and residential care. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred to that earlier.
  The Royal Victoria hospital Belfast has announced that it will not carry out non-emergency surgery on patients from non-fundholding GPs. The Ulster hospital carries out cancer procedures on patients of non-fundholding GPs free of charge, and I give it full marks for that. The Western health board in Northern Ireland has cut coronary artery bypass operations by 10 per cent. and there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in joint replacements and in ear nose and throat operations. If that is not a crisis, I do not understand the meaning of the word. There have been massive cuts at the Mater Infirmorum Hospital Health and Social Services trust. And so it goes on. I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall move on quickly.
  On 30 October 1996, the Royal Victoria hospital, which is known world wide for its excellence—it was the first hospital in the world to have a cardiac ambulance—announced that because of funding difficulties faced by the Eastern health board it would have to stop non-urgent work across a wide range of specialties. The patients of GP fundholders would be all right—it was the patients of non-fundholding GPs who would suffer. I find it difficult to understand when Conservative Members seem to scoff at the fact that the patients of non-fundholding doctors have to wait. I could go on for hours about that subject alone. It is a crisis, but Conservative Members do not understand that. We are talking about thousands of patients and about primary health care.
  Some people may try to blame non-fundholders and say that they should become fundholders, but I do not accept that argument. However, at present non-fundholding doctors have no choice but to apply to become fundholders. They must then wait nine months to a year to prove their accountancy abilities— although they were trained as doctors—before they are accepted.
  The Government appear to have ring-fenced resources for the patients of fundholding GPs but have not done so for patients of non-fundholding doctors through the Eastern board. The Royal group of hospitals is the largest trust in Northern Ireland and has proportionately the lowest management costs in the Province. I opposed the introduction of trusts from the beginning, but I admit that in management terms the Royal group of hospitals seems to have performed its work fairly well in comparison with other establishments.
  I appreciate that the Minister is currently considering an option appraisal for the Royal Maternity hospital, but I remind him that the hospital's neonatal unit serves the whole of Northern Ireland. It is a place excellence

  1045
  where all major paediatric services are located, including paediatric cardiology, nephrology and urology. The main orthopaedic hospital in the north of Ireland is Musgrave Park hospital, which is part of the Green Park Healthcare trust. The Minister has asked the boards to channel cuts towards "non-life-threatening procedures"—I think that that is the correct term—which means reductions in elective surgery.
  Hip joint replacement surgery will be cut dramatically from the record-breaking total of more than 2,000 joint replacements last year. Activity will probably be reduced by 50 per cent., which will mean an increase in waiting lists—waiting time is currently less than nine months—month after month. By the end of the financial year, patients may be waiting more than two years for joint replacement surgery. Further cuts will mean the dismantling of what has become the world's leading centre for joint replacement surgery.
  The Minister is conducting a cost appraisal of the cancer services at Belvoir Park hospital, and it is important that the Green Park trust is represented on the team that carries out that appraisal. Industrial action has been taken at the Downe hospital in Downpatrick and at other hospitals throughout the north of Ireland. I should point out that the private organisation Compass is able to change the contracts of support workers involved in strike action: non-negotiated contract changes are totally unacceptable.
  The Ulster, North Down and Ards hospital trust has also been severely affected by the cuts. Daisy Hill hospital in Newry—in the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—serves all of South Down and Armagh, which is a remote rural area. The local population is implacably opposed to plans to centralise services at Craigavon area hospital. No direct public transport serves the hospital, so access is a major problem.
  On what basis are decisions made to reduce the number of hospitals or to cut trust and hospital services? Are the reasons clinical, financial or professional? I should like to understand the basis of the decision making. Community trusts are also badly affected. The Eastern board has informed the North and West Belfast trust in my territory that "a phased programme of realignment"—what a lovely expression—is to be implemented. What does that mean? The board has simply used fancy words to say that services for the elderly will be greatly curtailed. The Down Lisburn trust has similar problems.
  Community district nurses, community psychiatric nurses, social workers, health visitors and midwives are overworked and underpaid. They provide a magnificent service, but they are not appreciated by Government. Some such people are my patients and I have worked with others for years. They have told me their problems and I take no pleasure in recounting them today.
  On 1 April this year, the British Medical Association produced a discussion paper entitled, "Financing the National Health Service". I accept Conservative Members' assertions that there must be some limits on the amount of money spent on the health service and that expenditure is based on taxation. I understand those points. The British Medical Association document: raises many issues, but the two central points are: first, the national health service is grossly under-funded and needs an immediate injection of funding; secondly, work must be done on methods of forecasting future demands and health care needs.
  1046
  I believe in the fundamental principles of the national health service established 50 years ago. I believe that health care should be available to all, on the basis of need and not on the basis of ability to pay or whether one is the patient of a fundholding or a non-fundholding GP.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. David Evans: We all know that the Labour party is quite capable of believing its own fairytales; its decision to debate the national health service shows its inability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. To set the scene, we should take a trip down memory lane—after all, it is the only way in which we can measure Labour's achievements in government. The 1974 Labour party manifesto promised:
  "A Labour Government will expand the national health service".
  Three years later, in 1977, Mr. David Ennals, Labour's Secretary of State for Health, was forced to concede:
  "In the present economic climate the Government could do little more than provide for the increasing number of old people, leaving a small margin for improvements in methods of treatment".
  In 1977–78, the health budget was cut by 3 per cent. in real terms and capital spending was cut by a third in real terms—the biggest, most devastating cut ever inflicted on the national health service capital programme. Those who began the NHS, who gave birth to it, have battered it more than any Tory Government—eat your heart out, Aneurin Bevan. Between 1974 and 1979, nurses' pay fell by 3 per cent. in real terms, doctors' pay fell by 16 per cent., surgeons' pay fell by 25 per cent. and waiting lists increased by 48 per cent.
  The economy as a whole reflects the state of the health service. Who will forget the 83 per cent. higher rate of tax, the 26.9 per cent. inflation rate or the Chancellor of the day turning around on his way to Heathrow and being told that the International Monetary Fund was running our economy? In 1978, Dr. James Cameron, the chairman of the British Medical Association, described how
  "The national health service is sick in Britain. It is inadequate and impersonal. It is losing the confidence of the medical profession and the public".
  The 1978 Royal College of Nursing congress at Harrogate talked about
  "a crisis of manpower, finance and morale in the service".
  The national health service went on strike in 1978–79, led by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees. Telephonists were on strike and clinical staff manned public telephone boxes to get calls into the hospitals. Clean linen was not allowed through picket lines and foul linen was destroyed because the unions would not allow it to be taken from the hospitals to be cleaned. Meals were provided by volunteers and cleaning was non-existent.
  Let us cast our minds back to the news stories of the time, which do not reveal a health service nurtured by a caring, sharing Labour Government—quite the opposite. A 1978 article in The Times entitled, "Hospital is to turn away patients with cancer", stated:
  "Patients with breast, lung and other cancers, and abortion cases are to be turned away from the Kingston hospital, Surrey, because of industrial action by health service workers and supervisors. The hospital said yesterday, 'From midnight next Tuesday, even known cancer cases will be denied admission and lives immediately threatened. Investigative surgery, even where there is a strong suspicion of a life-threatening condition, will not take place'".

  1047
  Even when we wanted to bury our loved ones—who might have died outside Kingston hospital—we could not do so, because the Transport and General Workers Union would not let the gravediggers dig the graves. We had to keep our loved ones in our living rooms until the gravediggers went back off strike.
  In her confessions, the former Secretary of State for Health, Baroness Castle, described her attack on pay beds during the winter of discontent as an "essential political sweetener" for the trade unions. The Labour party is still committed to tossing political sweeteners to trade unions. In return, the unions toss financial sweeteners to the Labour party. We know that 176 Labour Members are sponsored by unions. As the TGWU boss said, "No say, no pay."
  New Labour says that it intends to turn the clock back to the bad old days of the savage 1970s. As if that were not bad enough, it intends to strip health care professionals—administrators, doctors and GPs—of their power and put it in the hands of its new regional assemblies. What a recipe for disaster. Once again, the comrades will cut care. Their motto is, "Strikes first, patients last." Yet again the Labour party refuses to listen to the views of the professionals. Instead, it plays politics with the health service.
  If Labour had its way, the national health service as we know it would be destroyed. Decision making would be stripped from health care professionals and given to pompous, political shop stewards, who would tear the service apart as a result of regional, industrial and political battles.
  The lot opposite should turn the clock right back and try to understand Nye Bevan's intentions for the NHS. In 1946, he said:
  "I believe that democracy exists in the active participation in administration and policy. Therefore, I believe that it is a wise thing to give the doctors full participation in the administration of their own professions."
  Given that statement, if Nye Bevan were still a Member of Parliament today, and he reflected on the Conservative reforms and Labour's plans, I am pretty certain that he would vote for the Government amendment at the end of the debate.
  We have referred to the total disaster that was created last time Labour had power, and control of the health service and the lives of others. Let us consider what has happened since those dark days. It is an incredible story. Take GP fundholding. If all applications to join the scheme from April 1997 proceed, a further 3 million patients, and a total of 58 per cent. of the population, will be covered by GP fundholding. Since 1991, 15,000 general practitioners have joined the scheme, which is more than half of all GPs. In east Hertfordshire, which includes Welwyn Hatfield, fundholding covers 78 per cent. of the population, which is 20 per cent. more than the national average.
  We are now spending on the national health service £80,000 every minute of the day. We are spending £724 a year for every man, woman and child. Total spending this year will be £42.6 billion. Spending on the national health service has increased in real terms in every year of Conservative government since 1979. The service treats 80 per cent. more acute patients than it did 17 years
  1048
  ago. Nurses' average earnings have increased by 70 per cent. in real terms over that period. Capital spending has increased by 66 per cent. since 1979, which is in stark contrast to the 28 per cent. reduction under the previous Labour Government. Almost £2 billion was invested in NHS buildings in 1995–96 alone.
  Now we come to the heart of the matter. The number of doctors in England increased from 56,000 in 1978–79 to 81,000 in 1995. The number of nurses and midwives has increased by 55,000 since 1979. Nurses' pay has increased from £68 a week in 1979 to £311 a week in 1995, which is an increase of 70 per cent. in real terms. The number of dentists has gone up from 11,919 in 1978 to 18,668 in 1996. Infant mortality per 1,000 live births has gone down from 13.2 to 6.1. Under Labour, it went down from 16.3 to 13.2. Even more impressive is the fact that over 3 million more treatments were carried out in 1995–96 than in 1979, and over 1 million more than in 1991. In all, 10.5 million treatments are carried out each year.
  That lot over there have scored many own goals, and they have scored another one tonight. The NHS is safe in our hands. The elderly are safe in our hands. The sick are safe in our hands. The surgeons are safe in our hands. The nurses are safe in our hands. The doctors are safe in our hands. The dentists are safe in our hands. Our national health service has never been fitter, faster or more effective. The only people who would benefit from that lot over there being in power are the shop stewards and their trade union bosses. Labour would do what it always does: make a total mess of it. We owe it to the nation to ensure that Labour never gets the chance.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In the spirit of the age—which has clearly bypassed the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—I shall eschew ideology and party political point scoring and, instead, talk about health care in east London.
  A few weeks ago, the Royal Hospitals NHS trust launched a £300 million private finance initiative scheme for a new hospital at Whitechapel, which is to be built and run by the preferred bidder, the Health Management Group. The press launch took place in a blaze of self-congratulatory publicity, but what was not revealed was the apprehension of clinicians, consultants and junior hospital doctors. Their apprehension was set out in a letter dated 9 October 1996 to Dr. Duncan Empey, the medical director of the Royal Hospitals trust. It was signed by David MacLean, the chairman of the Royal London hospital medical council, Larry Baker, the chairman of St. Bartholomew's medical council and Mr. P. Magee, the chairman of the London chest hospital medical council.
  The letter refers to the £300 million scheme. It states:
  "We have heard from a large number of consultants, all of whom have been concerned that the space allocation in the new hospital for their relevant departments is smaller than they enjoy at present, and would certainly be inadequate for the planned patient flows. We were all originally promised that in the move to a single site the facilities would be equal to or better than those currently enjoyed, but this does not appear to obtain in plans from either consortium. This has caused a considerable degree of concern, and we feel that the future of the hospital as both an Accident and Emergency centre for the local population, and as a national and international centre of excellence, would be severely compromised under the available plans."
  The letter continues:

  1049
  "We are deeply concerned that if the issues of quality and quantity are not met, while in the short-term the Medical School and Hospital may appear to prosper, in the long-term recruitment will inevitably suffer and the quality of medical care, research and education will decline."
  In my view, it takes a peculiarly incompetent Government and hospital trust to spend £300 million on a project and make things worse rather than better.
  There is also considerable concern about the financial implications of the private finance initiative schemes that were referred to earlier, and particular concern about the financial end-loading of such schemes. It would seem that, in years to come, that could cause havoc to the revenue flows of the area health authority, and to the making of all its decisions. It might have to decide whether to support the PFI scheme down the years, or to stop spending money on hospital care in a variety of other local hospitals.
  I am a member of the Treasury Committee. We have done some research into PFI end-loading, but I believe that more is needed. Let me make two suggestions. First, I hope that the National Audit Office will look into the matter. I know that John Bourne, who is in charge of the NAO, would like to issue guidelines on the potential dangers of the end-loading that will occur in future years. Although the NAO does not currently look into schemes that have not been completed, in order to issue guidelines it would have to do so, because there are not enough PFI schemes around. I hope that the Royal Hospitals NHS trust scheme, which is easily the biggest PFI scheme in the NHS, is be one of those that John Bourne will examine.
  Secondly, the Health Committee should look at the revenue implications of PFI schemes and the dangers imposed on end-loading by the revenue flows. That must be examined in the context of the health management group in the scheme that I have mentioned asking for a rate of return no lower than 17 per cent.
  As I have said, the Royal Hospitals NHS trust scheme is very big, and I feel that it is proceeding with undue haste. I believe that it is being driven by political imperatives rather than by serious medical considerations. The health management group might pause to consider that there could be a change of government early next year, and that the new Government might take a very different view of a PFI scheme that proposes, for example, to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. I see that one of its great alumni, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) is present; I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The health management group might like to consider that the children of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the leader of the Labour party, were born at St. Bartholomew's. It might also like to consider that the constituents of the next Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—who is also present—actually use the hospital. Not only are there powerful logical, financial and medical reasons for the health management group to go a bit easy, unless it wants to wreck its own scheme and its own financial future; there are powerful emotional forces backing the retention of St. Bartholomew's as part of any PFI that eventually sees the light of day.
  Another point, which relates partly to the PFI scheme, concerns the future of paediatric care in east London. We have been told that there is no crisis, but there is certainly
  1050
  a crisis in east London's paediatric care. Part of that crisis is set out in a document marked "Strictly Private and Confidential" which comes from Vanessa Wright, clinical director of children's services at the Royal Hospitals NHS trust. It is dated 4 September 1996. It begins:
  "The financial position of the Children's Services Directorate at 31 July 1996 … shows a worsening overspend of …660,418, with a predicted year end out-turn of £1.366 million overspent … Senior management in The Royal Hospitals NHS Trust have made it abundantly clear that radical action has to be taken now to address this situation."
  The overspend has knock-on effects on paediatric care at both St. Bartholomew's hospital and Queen Elizabeth hospital for children. Everyone knows that St. Bartholomew's has a world-renowned paediatric cancer service. Following the scare document produced by the Royal Hospitals NHS trust, two proposals have been made so far. The document itself suggests shutting that world-famous paediatric cancer service—which would cause a public outcry—and transferring it to Queen Elizabeth hospital for children by 31 March next year. I do not believe that that will happen; I think that there will be second thoughts.
  Professor Lilleyman, however, has made an even more bizarre proposal. The professor, who has a privately financed chair at St. Bartholomew's, has proposed taking the whole unit—its facilities and patients—to Guy's hospital, south of the river. He made that proposal without the consent of the hospital for which he works. May I ask the Minister whether it is lawful for a professor with a privately financed chair to take an entire unit and its patients to another hospital without the permission of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust? I understand that Guy's is quite prepared to pinch that world-famous unit for reasons of prestige.
  Even the Royal Hospitals NHS trust does not like the idea. I have spoken to its chief executive, Gerry Green, who has made it clear that if Professor Lilleyman does try to scoot off down the river with the unit, he will go without facilities, without money and, in fact, without his clothes. I understand that he has said that the professor will go in his underpants and nothing else.
  It is the legality aspect that I find bizarre, as, I am sure, will every Member of Parliament. I want to ask the Minister about the future of paediatric care, without scoring any political points and without attacking the trust. I hope that he will give us a guarantee that if the Queen Elizabeth hospital, whose closure was announced three years ago, does close within the next year or so—it was originally intended to continue into the year 2000— alternative facilities will be made available before it shuts. If it does, three things will be needed.
  First, the new Homerton hospital has no paediatric beds at present, although it has just appointed an ambulatory paediatric consultant. If QEH shut, 25 or 30 children's beds would be needed at Homerton, probably by next autumn. Secondly, two wards would probably have to be moved from QEH to St. Bartholomew's to complement the existing two wards. Thirdly, the shortfall in beds that would still exist would have to be made up by the provision of more children's beds at the Royal London hospital.
  I have spoken to the Royal London hospital, to the chairman and chief executive of Homerton hospital and to consultants at St. Bartholomew's. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that, should QEH have

  1051
  to close rather than stay open until 2000, the new beds will be provided at Homerton, the two new wards will be opened at St. Bartholomew's and the extra beds will be made up by more children's beds at the Royal London. Queen Elizabeth hospital is much loved, but it does not have state-of-the-art facilities. Its theatres and its diagnostic back-up are not state of the art. Unless rebuilt on its present site, it will probably be impossible to keep it open. If the Minister can give me that assurance, some use will have come out of the debate.
  8.19 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Until the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) enlightened me, I did not think that I had much in common with the Leader of the Opposition. I now find that both he and I had children born at St. Bartholomew's hospital, which proves two things. We both know a good hospital when we see one and we both believe in the national health service because, for those Members who are not aware of the fact, St. Bartholomew's has never had any private beds. I was trained and I worked in the hospital as a clinician, and I am proud of its record and all that it stands for.
  The Government's reforms, particularly those since 1991, have been a great success and are a cause for rightful celebration after 50 years of the NHS. I never believed that, in my professional life, the health service could claim to be world class and decentralised, with emphasis on primary care teams. For proof of the success, one need look no further than the Opposition's typical hypocrisy on all the reforms over which they have fought so vigorously. Will they abolish NHS trusts? Of course not. Will they abolish general practitioner fundholding? Of course not.
  I read the words of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), soothing members of the British Medical Association—again I declare an interest—and telling us all that he is not a revolutionary. If he is ever lucky enough to hold office, he may tinker around the edges, but I suspect that the whole thing is an absolute farce and that he and his party will, in effect, continue the reforms that the Government have ably put in place.
  The ultimate test is always whether patients have benefited. The answer, of course, is that they have. The figures are absolutely irrefutable. Since the reforms, patient treatments—I think that they are called episodes in modern parlance—have increased vastly, by around 1 million. Waiting lists have been reduced to their lowest level ever. All that has been achieved in the context of the oft-derided patients charter.
  During the summer recess, I found myself on the receiving end in Odstock hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I cannot speak highly enough of the treatment that I received. There was none of the hanging around that I remember so well as a medical student, clinician and patient. My condition was hardly life threatening, but I was whisked from accident and emergency into theatre within an hour. On the ward, I saw nurse teamwork, which I had not always seen in the past, and excellent liaison between nurse teams as they came on and off duty.
  1052
  When I was discharged from hospital—I am sure every hon. Member knows that I and my family have always been NHS patients—I was admirably looked after by my local GP fundholding practice, by its district nurse and by the community pharmacist. That was an index of what the reforms have achieved: efficiency in a caring atmosphere.
  In my constituency, no less than 79 per cent. of patients are covered by GP fundholding practices. The borough of Merton, in which my constituency lies, is arguably the best served in London by NHS trust hospitals. Perhaps the service is equivalent to anything in any conurbation in the world, even though none of the four hospitals is actually situated in the borough. My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues, however, will be aware of recent consternation in south-west London. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, recognised by the Under—Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), as not a profligate one, reported a financial crisis in the offing. Its proposals to counteract the potential crisis were alarming.
  For instance, there was talk of non-urgent elective surgery being savagely reduced—not stopped, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesman said earlier. Inevitably, that would mean the return of longer waiting lists, which not only goes profoundly against everything that the Government have achieved, but is clearly unacceptable to patients and their families, and puts an extra financial burden on the social security budget. That litany of events has therefore caused much concern in my constituency and in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was generous with his time in listening to our concerns. I trust that that generosity will be matched by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when he responds—as I speak, he probably has responded. I hope that my constituents' understandable alarm will not be prolonged beyond next week's Budget statement, after which, clearly, rapid executive decisions will have to be made as to how funds are applied.
  I recognise that, in winding up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give assurances, but I emphasise the number of meetings that we have had on an all-party basis. We have had meetings with representatives from St. George's hospital, St. Helier hospital, Kingston hospital, Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, and Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, its chairman and its chief executive. They have already—I congratulate them on this—found efficiency gains of some £5 million, but further savings that have been asked for of £9 million are, I believe, impractical. They have a genuine case. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been able to pass on our concerns to his Treasury colleagues.
  After that acute problem has been solved—I am confident that it will be—it would be prudent for my hon. Friends to revisit the issue of the calculation of the capitation formula for resource allocation. We all know that such formulae are beset with difficulties. In Merton, we have had awful problems with the standard spending assessment. That has affected, for instance, teachers' pay because Merton is neither a truly inner nor a truly outer London borough. All hon. Members know how complex

  1053
  those calculations are, but we should revisit the matter in relation to our local health authority.
  From the point of view of my constituents, I can never contemplate surrendering the potentially bright future of Nelson hospital, which is bang in the middle both of my constituency and of the borough, and for which many of us have fought so hard and so long to ensure that it has a vigorous future in Merton. It absolutely epitomises the return of the cottage hospital. We have heard talk of cottage hospitals being closed. I am delighted to tell the House that I have received assurances from the St. Helier NHS trust that, despite its financial difficulties, it believes that plans for Nelson hospital can go ahead. That will be cause for much celebration in my constituency.
  Even Nelson hospital, with its proud record as a hospital in Merton, will give due deference to St. Bartholomew's hospital, for which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has been such a doughty fighter. For too long, I have had to live with a sense of terrible guilt about what was done to the hospital. I believe that an academic and medical act of vandalism has been carried out on that hospital, after its nearly nine centuries of being in the forefront of delivering medical care, often to the most needy people in a part of London that was never particularly privileged.
  During the consultation period, in February 1995, I expressed in writing to East London and The City health authority my gut feeling that the new buildings at the Royal London hospital might never appear, or not appear to the extent that was predicted. I very much hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that my worst fears will prove to be true because of financial demands or for other very practical reasons.
  I profoundly regret that I was persuaded to vote in favour of the reconstruction and the effective movement on to one site of Bart's and the Royal London hospitals. In the context of party unity, I suppose that we must all trim occasionally. I am certainly ashamed, however, that I rationalised my vote on the basis that there was never an undertaking from the Opposition that they would reverse the decision.
  I am even more aggrieved that one of the arguments made about closing Bart's, to reassure me and those of my hon. Friends who had doubts about it, centred on the issue of accident and emergency facilities for the City of London. I remember being reassured by former occupants of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's office that I need have no worries, because there would be adequate cover from the accident and emergency unit at Guy's hospital. We all know what has happened since then. It seems inevitable that the accident and emergency department at Guy's will be closed and shifted to St. Thomas's hospital. Therefore, the entire argument proved to be entirely bogus. One day, I suspect that the House and those who made the decision will come to regret it.
  Now there is at least some light on the horizon. I do not expect that I shall be able to make entirely common cause with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, but, in the past, I have criticised the City of London for being less than vigorous in its defence of St. Bartholomew's hospital. It is quite extraordinary that a body of that strength and antiquity should appear to be so inhibited in protecting such a unique—I use the word in its proper sense—hospital. Now we may be able to
  1054
  retrieve something positive from a disastrous situation: the Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew Charitable Foundation. The fact that that charitable foundation has been allowed to use the word royal is significant. Its members are working with the special trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Corporation of London, forming a tripartite body of absolutely impeccable credentials.
  While a decision is awaited on the private finance initiative application, which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch mentioned, the waters continue to be muddy. I do not pretend to the House that I can predict the outcome. Perhaps we shall end up with a dual-site option, with some specialist units continuing at Bart's, or perhaps there will be a completely new and exciting opportunity for an innovative model on the Bart's site, where the public-private interface will work. It has even been suggested that there might be a private provider that will provide a community centre or even contract back into the NHS. That type of synergy sounds like a very exciting possibility. An accident and emergency department could even be reintroduced with private funding.
  Those proposals could be a blueprint for the future. I do not say that any of them are in a final stage of formulation, but I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that, whatever happens to the Bart's site in the future, he will properly involve the Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew Charitable Foundation, the aims of which are
  "To establish on the Bans site an Independent Charitable Hospital and a Medical School of International standing",
  so that the fine traditions of that hospital can continue in a manner that is best suited to the century ahead.
  None of us can predict with any certainty how the NHS will develop and what administrative, financial and political factors may guide it. In the future, I believe that there may even be fewer tiers. The Government have done admirable work in reducing tiers in the NHS, and there may be further radical moves that they could make. An NHS executive, for example, could deal directly with NHS trust hospitals, which might provide greater flexibility and responsiveness, always with the patients' needs at the forefront.
  One matter about which I am absolutely certain is that the Labour party will always prove to be the old guard, dragging its feet until it sees that the reforms make sense. Labour Members cannot bring themselves to admit that the changes make sense and congratulate the Government on what they have achieved. That is the pattern of what has happened over the past 17 or 18 years.
  Today we heard about new Labour's expenditure plans, which will certainly entail more costs, although no more patients being treated. Whether one is talking about abolishing the internal market, withdrawing the PFI, reintroducing regional health structures or ending compulsory competitive tendering, the battles have been fought and won by the Government, and the Opposition's proposals will simply ensure that money and effort will be diverted from patients. In stark contrast, no one can challenge the effectiveness, innovation and courage of the Government's initiatives.
  I hope that between now and the general election, whenever it comes, the opportunity will present itself not only to continue those excellent policies, but to publicise their benefits rather more vigorously to patients and to the country.
  8.36 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) gave a balanced speech and, while pointing out the positive aspects, expressed his concerns about what has happened with some of the reforms. I should like to share the positive note that he struck, because too often we minimise the excellent work that has been done in the national health service over the years. I am familiar with the NHS through my personal experience and as a pastor and because my family has used it, and I understand not only the good work that it has done but the changes that it has undergone. Having said that, however, I think that the Government occasionally overstress the positive side of the NHS and fail to realise that there may be problems with it.
  Some years back, when he was a Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) was answering in a very positive manner for the Government during Question Time, and I was called by Madam Speaker to ask my supplementary question. I asked, "Will the Minister accept that we are not in heaven yet?" There was a sedentary intervention from a Conservative Member, who cried out, "That's what we're trying to prevent." I understood what he meant, but the fact is that there are problems in the health service, and we should at least be dealing with them.
  Earlier in the debate, it was said that, in the past, hospitals and health authorities were always able to balance their books. I wonder whether the problem today is that we have a different type of accountant, or that medical politics are being played. We are consistently told that we cannot provide services because we are already in the red. If it was possible to balance the books in the past when there were shortages in the health service, why can that not be done now? At no time have any Government been able to provide the finance to cover all the health service's demands.
  Another difficulty through the years has been with changing medical practices. Some practices were held on to for too long because people were accustomed to the work, happy in their environment and not prepared to move on. At times, developments were retarded.
  Rather interesting comments have been made about cutting administration costs, for which there is a place in some areas. Dr. Sandy Macara of the British Medical Association said not so very long ago that the question was not whether there should be less management; the service was happy with it. What it needed, he said, was more money. When we constantly criticise the amount spent on administration, we should bear in mind such a salutary warning, which was repeated by a recent witness to the Select Committee on Health, who claimed that more and better management was necessary to improve and co-ordinate children's health services.
  On the other hand, we must fire a shot across the bows of some managers, for I am not convinced that some of them are managing well. When one bears it in mind that some of them are getting more money for a year's work than the Prime Minister of the nation, it seems that we should demand a better service from them. In previous debates both in the Province and in the House, I have asked whether it is right to give bonuses to managers for cutting down on lower-paid workers, which seems to have been happening for some time. I have very little sympathy
  1056
  with trusts anywhere, especially in Northern Ireland, when they make ancillary workers redundant to save money, yet increase managers' salaries. I shall illustrate that point with regard to one of the finest hospitals in the United Kingdom.
  I have a letter from a person in North Down, a copy of which he sent to the hospital's chief executive. It said:
  "I visited a friend who is a patient in ward 17 … and found that she and others on the ward were on beds that did not have sheets, pillowcases or indeed any proper bed covers. When I enquired why this was so my friend advised that the laundry had not been received, this was at 4.00 pm!!
  I find this totally appalling and unacceptable. I realise that it has been necessary to implement cuts in the health service but surely the people who are ill deserve to receive humane treatment. and that includes clean bedding."
  I had had experience of such a problem earlier when I raised a similar issue with the management.
  I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who referred to the letter that the medical director of the trust wrote to general practitioners in October, which said:
  "elective activity for patients of non fund holding medical practices "—
  within the board area—
  "will be ceasing".
  I am not convinced that the question is simply one of giving preferential treatment to GP fundholders, for I am reminded constantly that emergency work and other types of serious surgery are still paid for—even that of GP fundholders—by the boards and regional authorities.
  There is an experiment in total fundholding at the moment. Given last year's experiences, it seems that there is a tendency to go ahead with spending the money that is available from GP fundholding, in the knowledge that at the year end the boards will be able to provide extra money because they have saved it. Have the Government rightly been blamed for gross underfunding, when no one—from my party, other Opposition parties, the BMA or anybody else—has said what amount is needed adequately to provide what is demanded of the NHS? Those who constantly criticise the health service will have to address that issue realistically.
  At the same time, I am not prepared to accept the explanations of the Department and of others in Northern Ireland who blame the shortage in health care and other areas on what they call the "disturbances" of the summer. As I understand it, all the budgets were set before the summer. Unless the Minister and the Department employed the services of Mystic Meg, I do not know how they foresaw that perceived disturbances in the summer would have an impact on the budget. I refute such an allegation, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Consolidated Fund does not include security matters. Indeed, we are regularly told in appropriation debates that we should not be referring to the security budget. The 3 per cent. cut was changed to 1.5 per cent. when the Minister realised that such a cut could not be made.
  Concerns are being raised—I have heard the Minister and others speak of them—that capital investment might be cut to feed current expenditure. That would be deplorable and short-sighted, bearing in mind the fact that it has been pointed out in the debate that, under a former Administration, there was no funding of capital building for years. It takes a long time to catch up on such capital

  1057
  expenditure. It therefore seems that such cuts would ultimately add to unnecessary expense in the long run. I am convinced, however, that there is still a case to be made for efficiency savings, while at the same time providing the extra funding that is needed to meet the shortfall because medical, surgical and other establishments are developing new forms of treatment. They are expensive, but in the long run they will add to the quality of life for patients and for the rest of the people.
  Having spoken of the large improvement in the health of our nation and praised ourselves for it, we should ask: why is there suddenly a spate of emergency admissions? Is it as a result of self-interest, as people try to add to demands on their budgets, in order to demand more money from the Treasury for their particular speciality or trust? We are all competing in the same field.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a great pleasure to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this important health service debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know only too well that sometimes, as a result of commitments in this place to Standing Committees, and so on, it is not always possible to be present for all the debate. I sincerely apologise to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for—unusually for me—not being able to be here as a result of service in a Committee earlier this afternoon.
  The debate has been interesting. As I look across the Chamber and along the Conservative Benches—although to a place perhaps a little detached—it is pleasing to see that we not have not only Members who represent English constituencies but our friends from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is very much an integral part of the United Kingdom, and it is entirely right that Northern Ireland Members should contribute to the debate. I regret that, in the unlikely event of there ever being a Labour Government, devolution plans will carve up the country, and who knows what will transpire.
  In an interesting and forthright speech, which we have come to expect from him, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) read out what to me was an appalling record, and an indictment, of the last Labour Government.
  My constituency should have had its brand new hospital in the 1970s. The references made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield to the Chancellor rushing to the airport and then having to come back to London and the crisis surrounding this country having to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund struck a chord with me, because the new hospital in which I have been a patient and which many of my constituents use, should have been built in the 1970s but was not, because the capital building programme was cut by one third by the Labour Government. My constituents had to wait for the election of a Conservative Government before progress could be made.
  In the same vein as other hon. Members, I should like to refer to some of my personal experiences of the national health service and make a couple of points on national issues, as well as referring to one particularly important local issue for Southport. I know that one or two other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief.
  I do not propose to repeat most of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield in his early remarks. However, when I receive a critical letter
  1058
  from a constituent about the health service, I shall send them a copy of his speech, which sets out only too well the record of the 1970s. As my hon. Friend said, there is no better way to see what may happen in future than looking at how people have acted in office in the past.
  I have been fortunate in having been in hospital on only a couple of occasions. Touch wood, I have had good health, apart from when my career in the Gordon Highlanders was cut short and I had to be invalided out; and, more recently, during the Maastricht debates. I do not know whether it was because we seemed to be going through the night rather a lot, but I remember turning up for what I thought would be a routine meeting of about 30 minutes with the chairman of my local NHS trust in 1993, and coming out of intensive care seven days later.
  I pay tribute to the professionalism and care of all the staff and administrators at the Southport and Formby Community Services trust. I am sure that the quality of health care provided to my constituents by one of the country's flagship trusts is reflected in other parts of the country. What my hon. Friends have already said proves that.
  The difficulties in and around my constituency are, in some ways, the difficulties of success. As a result of the Government's policies and the year-on-year real-terms increases in health service spending, we have a couple of pretty new hospitals five miles apart. Over the past few months, two local health authorities—South Lancashire and Sefton—have conducted a public consultation exercise on their plans to put particular specialist services in one hospital or the other. The advice of the clinicians—not the bureaucrats—has been that, to maintain important services such as cancer services, there must be centres of excellence throughout the region, never mind throughout the country.
  With two new hospitals not far apart, tough decisions sometimes have to be made. One difficulty of having two health authorities is that sometimes, for the wrong reasons, bureaucracy can take over. The provision for my constituents and those of the hon. Member for West Lancashir (Mr. Pickthall), who, unfortunately, cannot be here for this debate because of important engagements elsewhere, has been the subject of a review, because the two authorities have not been able to agree on what to do. Because they could not decide which services should be concentrated on one site, they decided to commission Sir Duncan Nichol, the former chief executive of the national health service, to undertake a report. He decided that there should be a hot site and a cold site. He then decided that the hot site should be in Southport, and the cold site in Ormskirk.
  Unfortunately, in spite of having commissioned the report, the two health authorities were still not able to agree on implementing its recommendations. I understand perhaps more than most the sensitivities of the issue, but, as others have pointed out, it was as a sop to those in the Ormskirk area that the two authorities decided that, although all the services would go to Southport, a new maternity unit would be based in Ormskirk.
  That process has got no further, because a petition was put together with more than 20,000 signatories. It was concocted by several local people with a passionate and genuine interest in the continued provision of local maternity services in Southport. They did not want those services to go five miles down the road to Ormskirk.

  1059
  Unfortunately, as so often happens, one or two local politicians jumped on the bandwagon of what had, until then, been a non-political public debate. One in particular, a local councillor by the name of Ronnie Fearn, who is known to hon. Members, decided to take hold of the petition, saying that it would be safe in his hands, and he would present it to the health authority. So safe was it in his hands and so competent was he that he presented it to the wrong people. They had to put it in a brown envelope, put some stamps on it and send it to the health authority that was conducting the review.
  The point of that story is that neither of the community health councils, made up of local people, has been prepared to object to the health authority's proposals. We have a problem if local people on the community health council are not prepared to oppose plans that concern so many people in my constituency.
  As I have made clear once before, I believe that the way to make progress on this constituency difficulty is to try to bring all the health services in Southport on to one site. The way forward is certainly through the private finance initiative. I am pleased that the Southport and Formby Community Services trust is undertaking pioneering work in that respect on new buildings.
  There is one further piece in the jigsaw that I should like to see in future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to my plea for him to consider closely the arguments that I am putting now, and shall put again in writing, for a special capital allocation, perhaps through the regional health authority, to ensure that the services at Southport general infirmary, which is now very old, can be moved to the new hospital site at Kew. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me a positive response to that request at the end of the debate.
  As other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will conclude simply by saying this: the record of the last Labour Government was such that we cannot trust the health service in Labour hands in the next Parliament. My constituents should have had their new hospital in the 1970s. We did not have it, because the Government of the day had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund after they had bankrupted us. We had to wait for the election of a Conservative Government, and I have no doubt that, as far as local health services are concerned, the best interests of my constituents are served by the re-election of this Conservative Government.
  8.58 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: We have heard a pretty remarkable display of complacency from Conservative Members, who have suggested that any criticism of the national health service is a slur on the service, or even shroud waving. Conservative Members seem to think that Labour Members are the only people who are worried about the current situation in the NHS. If that were so, it would not really matter, but it is not. Conservative Members should listen more to their constituents and to the staff who work in the service.
  Much praise has been directed towards the staff from both sides of the House and I certainly want to add my voice to that. I admire the devotion of most people who work in the NHS, who are expressing their worries in no
  1060
  uncertain terms. Their devotion is often taken advantage of. I worry about their work load, and they are often underpaid. At the moment, they have to waste time, effort and money in local negotiations, causing a completely wasteful duplication of effort, whose only purpose is to play one area and one worker off against another. That is nothing to be proud of, and it is certainly not efficient.
  People who work in the NHS do not complain only, or even mainly, about their pay. I think that all hon. Members will have received the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, which states:
  "The RCN has conducted two surveys of accident and emergency units in 1994 and 1996. Last winter our survey results showed that nearly half the A and E units monitored still had patients waiting overnight on trolleys."
  The RCN is not casting a slur on the NHS. Its members work in the NHS, and I believe that they are proud of it. They are not proud when patients have to spend many hours on trolleys.
  The management of the Preston Acute Hospitals NHS trust were not casting a slur on the national health service when they recently expressed to me their great worry and unease that the private finance initiative, at least as it is presently constituted, would remove from them the control that they should have over future hospital development. Theirs was a thoughtful appraisal of something that will have a long-term effect; it was not casting slurs or shroud waving. We ignore such expressions of concern at our peril.
  Of course, Conservative Members are too busy filling the airwaves with claims that more and more people are being treated. All sorts of somewhat spurious statistics are put before us. In the figures used by the Government Front-Bench team, it is not patients who are measured, but finished consultant episodes. Those are not necessarily the same as people. The Government should spend more time and effort trying to collect meaningful statistics— for example, for the league tables that rate hospitals one against another, which are important, as they can greatly affect which hospitals attract contracts. Often it is not the most vital things that are measured.
  Why not do as the RCN suggests, and collect information about the incidence of hospital-acquired infections? That would be a measure of hospital efficiency, and it would be a great deal more meaningful.
  Day care is another item that has to be considered. We are all in favour of day surgery units for appropriate use. I recently had the pleasure of opening a day surgery unit at the Royal Preston hospital. As a member of the Select Committee on Health, I have questioned Ministers about how they define day surgery units, and have discovered that they count only those that send people home in the evening; so, if a hospital prefers to have a unit that provides overnight recovery beds, it is not counted as a day surgery unit, yet that unit can use its facilities far more efficiently, because the whole day is available equally for operations and procedures.
  In other units, less recovery time is available as the day wears on, so only more minimal procedures can be carried out in the afternoon; yet a hospital that considers that and decides to have overnight beds will not be counted as providing day surgery, and will suffer in the league tables and when purchasers consider awarding contracts.
  In the national health service, we have to consider equity according to age and equity according to geography, among other issues. The national health

  1061
  service is not truly national and equitable across geographical areas. I shall give an example that works in favour of my area in the north-west. Far more multiple sclerosis patients in the north-west than in any other area are treated with a new drug, which can be extremely useful in certain circumstances but which is undeniably expensive. I do not believe for a moment that that is because the profile of multiple sclerosis sufferers in the north-west is fundamentally different from that of those in the rest of the country; it is an example of geographical inequity.
  It may be that other health authorities do things that are not done in the north-west, but the differences stem not from local accountability to people but from a lack of strategic planning and overall consideration of people's needs. If clinical need were the guide, geography would not normally be, as it often is, the deciding factor in whether or for whom treatment was available.
  I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said about mixed sex wards. I, too, believe that they are an affront to the dignity of patients, and cause a great deal of distress. I also believe that to cause distress to patients is to be inefficient. Those who consider beds and people as though the people were merely pawns to be moved around are not doing their care any favours. My hon. Friend dealt extremely well with the subject of mixed sex wards, but he did not make particular mention of psychiatric wards. I believe that mixed sex psychiatric wards are especially obnoxious and worrying.
  There is much talk about value for money, and I agree entirely that we should obtain it, but that cannot be done if people are treated and cared for by staff who are not appropriately trained; yet that is the case for many of our children.
  There is a shortage of paediatricians and other child-trained clinicians in our hospitals. I am shocked that paediatrics is regarded as a Cinderella specialty. Children form a quarter of our population, and what happens to them when they are sick can affect them all their lives. To achieve efficiency, we must ensure good and appropriate treatment for children. Half the children in hospital are in adult wards. That is a disgrace. I do not think that one Conservative Member has mentioned children. That is typical of our neglect of that quarter of the population in health matters.
  Many of our sick children, including children with complex disabilities, are now cared for at home. It is especially important to examine the care available for them. They need a community children's nursing service, but in half the country there is no such service. As adults, we expect trained nurses—district and community nurses—to be available. They give us wonderful service. Children have equal need, and should have an equal right to a nursing service trained for their special care, yet half the country has no such service.
  Only 10 per cent. of the country has a 24-hour nursing service. Conservative Members who are pointing at their watches should desist. I have sat here for many hours; none of them has been here for as long as I have. It speaks volumes that it is while I am talking about our children and telling the House some uncomfortable facts about how we do not look after them properly, that 1 am interrupted.
  1062
  Only 10 per cent. of the country has a 24-hour children's community nursing service. That means that 90 per cent. of parents with kids who may have complex difficulties or be terminally ill have no district nurse to call on who is trained to look after children. In the whole country, there are only about 400 such nurses. More urgently need to be trained, and then employed to provide that service. Without appropriately trained staff, we do not get value for money.
  I also suggest that we would get value for money if we gave better support to voluntary organisations such as Home-Start, which exists to support families with needs, often health needs. It is wrong that, when people are willing to give time and effort to voluntary work, they should be given the overwhelming burden of perpetual fund-raising. If we are trying to get the best value from every pound expended by the state, we should direct more money at organisations such as Home-Start.
  A Conservative Member said that a strong economy was the fundamental need. Of course I agree with that, but it is rich coming from a Government who have presided over constant high unemployment and the destruction of our manufacturing industry. It is not only to provide the wherewithal that we need a strong economy. Economic and social problems make people's health worse, so it is important that we have a strong economy with people in work, because, if people are unemployed, they suffer more sickness.
  It is important that we devote our resources to a fairer society. For example, old people still suffer cold in the winter. That is something which I am trying to remedy by the modest Bill I presented today. Let us have a strong economy with the right priorities, so that we have a fairer society. A fairer society is a healthier society.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has allowed me only five minutes, because I know that those on the Front Benches wish to start summing up at about 9.20 pm.
  The hon. Lady says that statistics are meaningless, yet, like so many other Opposition Members, she presented a tirade of criticisms of the national health service. The NHS, which is the largest employer in the United Kingdom, is certainly not perfect. Of course it is not. There will always be room for improvement. However, my local chairman always said to me, "If you want to know how the health service is doing, ask someone who has been a patient." That is extremely good advice.
  I shall talk briefly about the NHS generally, but more particularly in Lichfield, which I have the honour to represent as part of my constituency. The overriding statistic that Opposition Members choose to ignore is that, in 1979, in the last few months of the Labour Administration, 25 per cent. of all patients waiting for treatment had to wait for hospital treatment for over a year. Now, in 1996, there has been a reduction to only 0.4 per cent. Instead of one in four patients, it is now one in 250 waiting for hospital treatment for longer than one year. Surely that is something of which we must be proud.
  The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that the acid test of how well the health service is doing is the number of patients who are being treated. In that respect, too, even by the right hon. Gentleman's criterion,

  1063
  the Government have passed the test. More patients are being treated in primary care and in hospitals than ever before.
  Premier Health trust, which is based in Lichfield, runs the Victoria hospital in Lichfield. Waiting times at that hospital have been reduced to the shortest time ever. The majority of patients with non-urgent problems are seen within four weeks for their first appointment. That enables more patients than ever before to be treated.
  A rehabilitation unit has been operating for the past 18 months. It provides more appropriate services in responding to need in Lichfield, where previously patients had to go to Birmingham, Sutton Coldfield, Burton or Stafford.
  The Victoria hospital has introduced an abdominal ultrascan unit. Since July 1994, when it was introduced, the number of patients scanned has doubled. Obstetric scanning was introduced at the beginning of 1995, enabling mothers to be scanned locally rather than travelling to the district general hospital. The minor injuries unit is meeting patient charter standards for the first time this year.
  I am impressed by the number of consultants who now go to the Victoria hospital to treat patients. In the old days, under the old NHS scheme which Labour would like to preserve in aspic, it was always the patients who had to follow the consultants. We now see the consultants following the patients. In the out-patients department of the Lichfield Victoria hospital, 51 consultants are attending each week. For day cases, there are 20 visiting consultants in five different specialties, whereas previously patients would have to travel to Burton, Stafford, Sutton Coldfield or Birmingham.
  We have heard cant, hypocrisy and soundbite from Opposition Front Benchers; but when they are asked how much more money Labour will give to support the NHS, they are silent. When Labour is asked how it will restructure the NHS, its Front Benchers are silent. When Labour is asked precisely how it will replace GP fundholding, its Front Benchers are silent. Most telling of all, when Labour is asked how it can defend its stewardship of the NHS under the last Labour Government, when NHS expenditure was cut by more than 30 per cent., Labour Front Benchers fidget and remain silent.
  Labour's soundbites cannot guarantee the wealth of the nation, nor the safety of the NHS. As the right hon. Member for Livingston said, the acid test is how many patients are being treated. This Government—this Conservative Government—have passed that test.
  9.20 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I begin by declaring an interest: I have for four years been a member of the parliamentary panel of the Royal College of Nursing.
  In winding up the debate, I want to address three issues. The first is the damaging gap between what is actually happening in hospitals up and down the country and the fantasy world in which the Secretary of State and other Ministers believe. Secondly, I shall address the way in which the internal market and fundholding have destroyed a founding principle of our national health service: that
  1064
  patients are treated according to their need, not their ability to pay or any other consideration. Finally, I shall address the transformation of the culture of the national health service as a result of Government reforms from a public service culture to one that apes that of a commercial organisation.
  The debate has demonstrated beyond doubt the scale of the crisis facing our health service this winter. We have heard eloquent evidence from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) about the real difficulties facing their constituents in securing treatment this winter. We have heard my hon Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) describe the great fears of his constituents about the pre-emption of revenue by the large private finance initiative scheme in east London.
  We also heard a surprising confession from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson— Wickes), regretting his failure to join us in opposing the devastation of London hospitals four years ago. He eloquently described the medical and academic vandalism that was inflicted at that time—a loss to the capital's medical resources that will be hard to recover.
  I want to pick up the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) to the iniquity of mixed sex wards and underline the enormous concern about the persistence of such wards in psychiatric hospitals. About 50 per cent. of women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals have, at some time, been victims of sexual abuse. Research has shown that and shown how damaging to their well-being is the fear of vulnerability to and the possibility of sexual attack while in hospital. There is an urgent need to phase out mixed sex wards and the experiences of women in psychiatric hospitals and of men and women in general wards bear testament to that.
  More than anything else, the way in which this winter's crisis has been debated today has marked a clear dividing line between Government and Opposition. Ours is no longer a health service that treats people according to their clinical need—examples from throughout the country have emphasised that. The Government have created that set of circumstances and now shrug off responsibility, saying that the circumstances result from local decision.
  The NHS is fast becoming an emergency-only service—a safety net service for those who are acutely ill, while waiting lists lengthen. The crisis—the uncertainty that has been created for patients this winter—is being managed by nods and winks.
  We hear reports that regions are telling trusts not to pay creditors after February, as a way to tide things over. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he can confirm that the Government do not intend to break the agreement that creditors are paid within 30 days. I see that the Minister does not wish to answer that point.
  Regions are telling trusts that waiting lists should be allowed to lengthen, and that decisions as to how to manage the crisis are down to local managers, so that those who are responsible for the shambles—Ministers—stay as far from blame as possible. It amounts to something when the chief executive of the national health service executive sends a letter to trusts about handling the winter crisis, stating emphatically that it is not a new set of instructions or requirements.

  1065
  Making the noise, as it is termed, is left to the Secretary of State, as he briefs the media and persuades Tory-supporting chairs of trusts to join his new NHS Network, using their position as public appointees for naked electioneering.
  Someone who obviously is not a member of the Tory good news brigade is the chair of the Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS trust. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said, he has been vocal in expressing his anxieties about his trust's capacity to treat patients this winter.
  What is happening at the Queens medical centre in Nottingham helps us to understand the distortions in the health service. On 1 November, the centre stopped taking any routine elective admissions from non-fundholding GPs. As only 23 per cent. of Nottingham's population is covered by fundholders, 77 per cent. of the population now cannot have surgery unless they can be admitted as an emergency. That means that the centre has empty beds, so nearby Derbyshire, where 90 per cent. of GPs are fundholders, is referring its patients for treatment in the empty beds.
  In 1990, the reforms were introduced with much-vaunted claims that the money would follow the patient. Patients now follow the money—where their GPs are fundholders. The chances of getting elective surgery done before next April are increasingly remote anywhere in the country unless a person is the patient of a fundholder, regardless of what is wrong with him.
  King's College hospital provides a local example of the two-tier national health service, described as "an everyday reality" by Derek Smith, the chief executive. At the public meeting earlier this year, he said:
  "Having succeeded in driving down waiting lists for all patients to twelve months it is with regret that we now see waiting times rising again for patients from Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. We are a national and regional centre of excellence but we live and work at the centre of our local community from which patients have longer waits than those from outside the area.
  This is in effect a two-tier NHS…the last few years King's has seen major expansion and development as part of an ongoing modernisation programme. We have new, high-tech facilities such as our day surgery centre which is under-used while there arc patients on waiting lists that it can care for."
  A surgeon at King's College hospital, which treats my constituents, recently sent me a letter that had been circulated to all senior registrars, registrars and consultants in the surgery and critical care groups. They are working closely with the marketing department to attract additional ECRs and fundholding GP activity. They are concerned to draw attention to the clinical urgency of some of the cases that will face extended waits as a result of insufficient contract volumes. That is especially pronounced in neurology, where many cases involve following up, treating or diagnosing cancer.
  The vascular clinic will now, on Wednesday mornings and Friday afternoons, book in only the patients of GP fundholders and extra-contractual referrals. I should like Ministers to tell me how I can justify all that to my constituents.
  Of course people suffer as a result. The need for routine surgery becomes a necessity for emergency treatment when, for instance, a man with angina has a heart attack, or a man with prostate problems becomes unable to pass urine. A cardiologist in Bedfordshire recently observed
  1066
  that his patients waiting for heart surgery are more likely to die on the waiting list than they are to die of the operation.
  There is another inequity in the system. Fundholding GPs do not have to meet the costs of emergency treatment for their patients. As emergencies increase, therefore, the costs are a further drain on the resources of health authorities, not fundholders. So health authorities are faced with an increasing number of emergencies and with meeting, where possible, the costs of elective surgery for the patients of non-fundholding GPs.
  All this represents more broken promises. Moorfields Eye hospital has just extended its out-patient waiting time to 26 weeks, in clear breach of the patients charter standard of 13 weeks.
  This may be bad news for patients; it is certainly good news for private providers and the insurance companies, for which insecurity and lengthening waiting lists are the best possible recruiting sergeants. Increasing numbers of people are paying twice for their health care. What is so damaging is that no one in the Conservative party takes the problem seriously. The Government live in a world of make-believe. Most recently, the Secretary of State published a White Paper setting out, as he called it, his credo for the national health service. In it we read fairy tales about the triumphs of the NHS. There have certainly been some triumphs, but they are achieved by the dedication of staff—despite, not because of, this Government.
  The White Paper failed to mention elderly patients waiting on trolleys or patients re-admitted after premature discharge—or lengthening waiting lists, cancelled operations or the winter crisis. All these are the daily facts of life for staff and patients alike. Furthermore, there was no mention of those great Government icons: competition and the market. The Government believe that they have been a howling success. They should perhaps take seriously the findings of the recent "British Social Attitudes" survey. When asked whether they thought that the health service had improved, 81 per cent. of those interviewed said that they saw no improvement and 49 per cent. believed that things had got worse or much worse.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware of the poll of patients who had recently been treated by the health service, over 80 per cent. of whom said that they thought the health service had improved in the past few years? Is she not merely reflecting Labour party propaganda? How effective that has been in convincing people who have not been treated that the health service is not successful.
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. There is a view of reality that is shared by Conservative Members, and there is the real world outside, across the bridge at St. Thomas's hospital, at King's College hospital, Guy's hospital and Chase Farm hospital.
  At the root of all that is the fact that the Tories do not really believe in the national health service. They voted against it 50 years ago. They have come to see it as inevitable, but they do not see it as desirable. The Secretary of State continues to protest that his intentions are good. Perhaps they are; let us give him the benefit of the doubt. But the truth is that his heart is not in it. For the Conservatives, state medicine is like state education: the odd hon. Member may use it, but most do not.

  1067
  At Richmond house, where the Secretary of State sits, in a world where the raw pain and hard choices are sanitised, and where management-speak has taken over from patient care, a particular language is spoken. Nasty words such as "patients", "pain" and "waiting lists" have been eliminated from the vocabulary.
  I was recently sent a copy of the minutes of the management board, the most senior board responsible for the NHS. One need read no further than those minutes to understand that patients have simply been written out of the script. Nowhere in the long deliberations of that meeting are patients mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston made the point that the Government no longer speak about patients, but speak instead about finished consultant episodes.
  To give the House a flavour of the way in which the board speaks, I quote from the document. It states:
  "The Board considered the areas of the country which faced the most difficulties. It agreed that support must be given to the NHS to manage through these problems without impacting on the many improvements already achieved … A more open position on prioritising was inevitable."
  What on earth does that mean?
  There is no mention of patients in the letters sent to trusts and health authorities about the winter crisis. The NHS is aping the culture of a commercial organisation and failing both patients and staff in the process.
  I received a letter today from the Royal College of Midwives expressing great concern at the fact that "Changing Childbirth" was becoming less viable. That is supported by both sides of the House as the way forward in maternity care. "Changing Childbirth" is threatened by the recruitment and retention crisis hitting midwifery.
  The people of this country will have to get through this winter. There will be heartache and anger as clinical priorities are determined by the crude mechanisms of a false market. In the spring there will be a general election. That will be the last chance for our national health service.
  Labour will rid the health service of the dogma-driven reforms foisted on it by the Government. It will mend the fractures that have shattered the NHS into hundreds of small businesses. We will rebuild a health service in which our constituents can have confidence and of which the country can again be proud.
  9.38 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) had an opportunity to set out some of her party's policies, as the country approaches an election, about the future of the national health service, but we heard absolutely nothing about what the Labour party would do. The same was also true of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who opened the debate.
  The emptiness of the Labour party and its policies on the national health service characterised the debate. All that the hon. Lady did in winding up the debate was to reiterate threats about the privatisation of the NHS and the hidden agenda for the NHS that the Government were supposed to have in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997. The hon. Lady will doubtless make the same speech about our hidden agenda when we come up for re-election again in 2002, still supporters of our national health service.
  1068
  Our future for the NHS is contained in "secret documents" called White Papers, which appear in public and are debated. It also appears in things called Bills, which come before the House—currently before the House of Lords—in terms of bringing forward primary care. It is astonishing that not one Opposition Member even bothered during the debate to mention what is at the centre of the debate on our health service today—the future of a primary care-led NHS—and that a Bill has been presented to Parliament. Not a word did we hear from Labour Members about that, what their thoughts about it were and how they would take it forward. We will talk about that later in my speech, I promise.
  We also failed to hear the Labour party's pledge on spending. Again, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury totally refused to match the promise that made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and repeated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Chris Smith: How much?
  Mr. Malone: It is a real-terms increase year on year on year on year for the next Parliament, just as we have done in this Parliament and in the Parliaments before that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that getting down to specifics on health spending will do him any good, he should look at the record of the last Labour Government. Not only was that pledge not honoured in its final years, but—for the first time in the history of the health service, I believe—the percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care in this country slipped from 4.8 per cent. to 4.7 per cent. The figure has now been increased to 5.9 per cent.
  Mr. Smith: Can the Minister confirm two things? First, will he confirm that the percentage of GDP currently spent on the national health service is less than it was at the general election in 1992? Secondly, will he confirm that the last Labour Government raised national health service spending by more in real terms in its five years than has happened in the past five years?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman made much of his party's custody of the health service while Labour was in Government. In Government, we have gone from 4.7 per cent. of GDP to 5.9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman cannot fudge that.
  It beggars belief that, even in the winding up of the debate, when the hon. Gentleman intervenes he does not take the opportunity to repeat or match the pledge that the Prime Minister has given. The hon. Gentleman made much of Red Book figures—outline figures —and the House knows that they are not normally the figures lit upon at the end of the day. He said that a 0.1 per cent. increase in health spending in real terms was tiny. If that is so, will he now pledge to match even that minimalist amount in real terms spending on the health service if he were in Government? I invite him to do so now, but he will not, as I am sure that the House will have recognised.
  The truth is that the Tories are now running the agenda on the NHS. That is what I believe that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), Labour's spin doctor, may well have said. I can hear it characterising the debate. "Come on, Chris. The Tories are running the agenda on the NHS. Even if we can't promise anything—and you

  1069
  can't promise anything—let's simply declare a crisis." After all, that is what the Labour party has done for 17 years, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it has not done the Labour party any good.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have participated in the debate. I shall refer to a number of the contributions and try to answer the points that were made.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was Secretary of State for Social Services for six years and he drew on that extensive experience in his speech. He pointed out that trust hospitals are able to respond to problems, and he used a constituency example to illustrate very clearly how trusts can make rapid changes in order to improve service provision.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised two points. First, he referred to mental health and asked whether the Government consider it a priority. I assure him that we do. In the current year, £95 million in additional revenue has been devoted to improving mental health services—£53 million from health authorities, £10 million from the mental health challenge fund, £10 million in matching health authority funding, and £20 million from the mental illness specific grant, plus a £2 million contribution from local authorities. I hope that he will accept that as proof of our earnest intentions and our acceptance of mental health as a priority.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned backlog maintenance. That figure must be put in perspective, as it represents only 3 per cent. of the replacement cost of NHS estates. He should bear in mind also the fact that the NHS is responsible for more than 700 listed buildings, which is more than the National Trust.
  The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) highlighted problems with the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is taking a close interest in the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Rowe) mentioned a primary care-led NHS and set out the improvements that that will bring—including quicker access and new clinics located closer to patients. The legislation that is currently before Parliament: will encourage further developments in that area. It embraces the principle that patient care should take place closer to the patient where that is clinically appropriate. Although Labour Members said nothing about it, the move is welcomed by the medical profession and by those who are involved in primary care delivery.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) raised two points. First, he asked what was happening at the Queens Medical Centre NHS trust. That trust is increasing the treatment that it provides, and the number of cases rose by 2.2 per cent. last year. Trusts up and down the country are facing pressures and difficulties, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will view current events in the context of an overall increase in treatment. Secondly, the allocation for his local health authority increased by £15 million last year— which is the largest percentage increase in the Trent region.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made the very good point that we must follow policies with real finance. In so doing, he put the Labour party on the spot as he clearly understands that there can be no pledges regarding the health service unless they are
  1070
  followed with real cash commitments. He raised several other matters that are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I shall ensure that they are drawn to his attention.
  I do not usually enjoy the contributions of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), but I think that he has been taking tablets to relieve his gloom because there was some optimism in his speech when he referred to positive primary care developments and hospital improvements in his constituency. I thought that we might be persuading him to our point of view, but, sadly, the clouds soon gathered again. Despite his praise for the health service, he raised several specific points. He referred to increased intensive care and high dependency bed provision. West Yorkshire is allocating £4 million to achieve that increase and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced measures earlier this year to increase the number of paediatric intensive care beds by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Gunnell rose—
  Mr. Malone: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman may raise a specific point with me later, but I must make progress now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) vigorously attacked the Labour party's lack of policies. I agree with him, as today Opposition Members again indulged in shroud-waving. My hon. Friend referred to The Independent article attacking Labour, and pointed out correctly that we have taken over the health care agenda, which the Labour party always claimed for itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) asked for specific reassurances about the future of the Bart's site. As he knows, the matter is being considered by a committee that is due to report in the not too distant future. He will be kept up to date with developments in that important area.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Malone: I am afraid that I do not have time.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about managers who receive salaries that are disproportionate to the task involved. The salary of an individual NHS trust chief executive is a matter for the committee of that trust. He also asked about emergency admissions. Concern about that has been expressed, and the problem is not explained by looking at the situation across the service. However, the matter is being investigated. Good management can often cope with an unexpected rise in emergency admissions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) raised a constituency point about a private finance initiative. He asked for my assurance that I would keep the matter under review. I will watch developments in his constituency. I understand how important this is to him: he is a great campaigner on behalf of his constituents, and draws such matters to the attention of Ministers. I promise him that I will keep it well within my view.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) raised a point that deserves the House's attention. She talked about the number of finished consultant episodes as if it was a magic figure that was irrelevant. I remind her—and perhaps the House—of their history. She may have forgotten that the move towards finished consultant

  1071
  episodes as a true measure of performance in the NHS was recommended by the working group chaired by Edith Körner. The hon. Lady may also have forgotten that the then Department of Health and Social Security, in its consultation document, proposed a joint steering group to examine this matter, which was established in February 1979. It was welcomed by Labour's Royal Commission on the national health service, which said:
  "Improvements in information will initially require additional expenditure on administration but we expect the quality of decision making would thereby be much improved."
  A journalist called Ann Clwyd happened to be a member of that commission.
  The use of proper statistics was put in place by a Labour Government and was carried on by the Körner committee. They are the truest measure of NHS activity. It does the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends no good at all to denigrate the increased activity of the NHS by saying that the statistics are false. They are not. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that this was a Labour idea in the first place. Similarly, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) keeps telling us that the private finance initiative was his idea in the first place. On investigation, it seems that finished consultant episodes started off their life in the dying days of a Labour Government.
  Labour Members did not touch on their plans for the future of the health service. They were silent on that. They tried their usual trick of denigrating the achievements of people in the health service. They set those achievements at naught.
  Let me set out what I think people take as the true benchmarks of the success of a national health service, and the benchmarks of a Government's commitment to it. First, I shall deal with the work force. How many more nurses are there in the health service since the Government entered office in 1979? There are 55,000 more nurses, which is not the figure that Labour Members consistently peddle, even though they have been told time and again that their figures and the basis on which they are calculated are false. If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury wants to test me further, I can tell him that since the reforms there has been a smaller increase of 1,000 or 2,000, so he is wrong on that as well.
  The number of hospital staff has increased from 48,590 to 55,350, which is a huge increase. That investment in the medical profession has been financed as a result of the Government's determined efforts. Let us pick another benchmark that Labour Members are always keen to talk about when it suits them—waiting times. It is absurd to use the overall number of people who are waiting for operations as the benchmark of the health service's success. As a service grows, and as more and more people are treated by it, so the number waiting for treatment at any given time will increase in absolute terms. What the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury fails to recognise is that whereas 195,185 people were waiting for more than a year in 1979, in 1996 the figure is 4,576. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman again that it is the length of time for which someone waits for an operation and treatment that counts.
  Earlier, an Opposition Member who is not present now said, from a sedentary position, that we were cheating with our figures, because we were not including out-patient
  1072
  waiting times. But the Government pass that benchmark test as well, with flying colours: 85 per cent. of patients are now seen within 13 weeks at out-patient clinics, which is a great achievement.
  Another thing that we did not hear about from the Opposition is their policy on GP fundholding, which changes regularly with every change in Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The language has changed—and I hope that the nation understands what that language means as well as GP fundholders do. First the Opposition were going to abolish fundholding; then they were going to replace it. Now, I understand that—following a speech made in Harrogate by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to the Association of Fundholding Practices—we have heard something else: it is going to evolve.
  It is no good for the hon. Gentleman to go to conferences of GP fundholders and praise them for their achievements, saying that he will listen to what is said about fundholding in the future, and then to come to the House and make a speech that denigrates those achievements in the clearest and most absolute way. Whatever words he and his hon. Friends use about GP fundholding, my goodness, we know what replacing it, evolving it or abolishing it actually means. If anyone who was a member of Stalin's Politburo was told that he would be evolved or replaced, he knew exactly what would happen—and that is precisely what GP fundholders understand.
  Let me end not just by confirming the Government's commitment to the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly presented—indicating confirmation of our adherence to the principles of the NHS—but by talking about the primary care-led NHS. It is a tremendous achievement for GPs across the country, both fundholders and non-fundholders, that we are now in a position to proceed with a primary care-led Bill that will make a primary care-led NHS a reality.
  I object to Opposition Members' denigration of what has been happening, both in innovation in primary care through fundholders and in other ways. A policy of denigration is a disgrace, because it betrays the work of all who perform services in the NHS.
  I recently wrote to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, raising with him an issue that he had raised at Prime Minister's Question Time. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman made yet another unfounded assertion about our NHS, saying that maternity services had declined under the present Government in recent years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that that is given some support by the Labour party. I hope that the midwives who deliver maternity services, and all who have worked hard to develop changing childbirth techniques—
  Ms Jowell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: Not now.
  I hope that all those who have improved the quality of maternity services will understand how little the Leader of the Opposition values them.
  I have issued a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition, and I issue it to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury as well. Those who criticise the NHS should put up or shut up. They should give us the facts and figures, so that we may respond. What is intolerable to all who work in

  1073
  the service is the denigration of their achievements through unfounded accusations, which has been the tactic of the Labour party in recent years. It has had an opportunity today to explain to the House and to the electorate whether it has a vision for the future of the NHS. It has none. It is this party and this Government who have that vision and who will carry it forward in the next Parliament.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 274.

  Division No. 16]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Alton, David

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dixon, Don

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dobson, Frank

  Austin-Walker, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dowd, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Bayley, Hugh

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beggs, Roy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, A J

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Berry, Roger

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boateng, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Gapes, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Byers, Stephen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Callaghan, Jim

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoey, Miss Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, Alan (Statf'd-on-A)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  1074

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Reid, Dr John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rendel, David

  Keen, Alan

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Rogers, Allan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Robert

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Shore, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  MacShane, Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Speller, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maginnis, Ken

  Stevenson, George

  Mendelson, Peter

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Timms, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michael, Alun

  Touhig, Don

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Olner, Bill

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Stanley

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy and

  Parry, Robert

  Ms Angela Eagle.

  Pearson, Ian

  Pendry, Tom

  1075

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Faber, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkins, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bates, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Channon, Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cope, Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Douglas

  Curry, David

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Tom

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Knox, Sir David

  1076

  Kynoch, George

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sykes, John

  Mellor, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thomason, Roy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Newton, Tony

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Tredinnick, David

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Trend, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Page, Richard

  Waldegrave, William

  Paice, James

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Patten, John

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Redwood, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Renton, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Young, Sir George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Mr. Bowen Wells and

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,

  1077
  That this House believes the National Health Service is one of the success stories of modern Britain and is wholeheartedly committed to developing the NHS on the basis of its founding principles of universality, high quality and availability on the basis of clinical need, without regard for the patient's ability to pay: expresses its support for the Government's initiatives to release £300 million from unnecessary NHS administration; welcomes both the Government's further plans to develop NHS primary care and the recent White Paper A Service With Ambitions, which sets out a medium-term framework for a high-quality patient-focused NHS; and welcomes the Government's pledge to spend more money on the NHS, over and above inflation, for each year of the five years of the next Parliament.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    CINEMA AND TELEVISION PRODUCTION
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 12357/95 relating to the establishment of a European Guarantee Fund to promote cinema and television production; and supports the Government's view that such a fund can only be successful in strengthening the audiovisual industries if it is privately funded and run on wholly commercial lines.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

    IDENTIFICATION OF CATTLE AND LABELLING OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10495/96, relating to the identification and registration of bovine animals, and the labelling of beef and beef products; and supports the principle of improved traceability for cattle as a means to improve consumer confidence in beef.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    Question agreed to.

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Succession (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.
    That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DENTISTS
    That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    Question agreed to.

  Water Meters (Norwich)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of water metering in Norwich. I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to reply to the debate. I was worried whether he would get to the Front Bench in time, but he is there and I welcome him and his colleagues.
  This is an important subject, because East Anglia has the lowest average annual rainfall of any region in the United Kingdom, comparable to that of the southern coastline of the Mediterranean. I had the privilege of raising the implications for Norwich and Norfolk of that water scarcity in an Adjournment debate back in February 1992.
  You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at that time we had had a long period of drought and water depletion. I remember arguing strongly for the installation of water meters. That is the subject to which I am returning tonight. It was an important subject then, and it is more important now. The efficient use of water and water conservation measures matter more to us than to people in other parts of the country.
  My concern is not specifically the provision of water meters to consumers in my constituency, but the decision of Norwich city council to deny the opportunity to its periodic or weekly tenants to have meters installed. The city council owns almost 20,000 homes in Norwich —more than one third of all homes in the area—so a large number of people are being denied the opportunity to cut their water bills. That is particularly true of elderly people, small families and individuals. When making its decision and ignoring the well-informed local campaign work of people such as Bashir Khanbai, John Fisher and Robert Kinghorn, the Labour majority on the council has shown itself to be out of date and seriously out of touch with the people of Norwich.
  The ostensible reason for the policy appears to be that the installation of water meters would discriminate against those who may need to use large quantities of water—the disabled, those with long-term illnesses and people with large families. The council defends its position on the further ground that any advantage to existing tenants may prove a disadvantage to subsequent tenants of properties with water meters. It has been alleged that there are grave public health concerns over the issue. As a result, the city council has barred its tenants from taking advantage of the metering options offered by Anglian Water.
  Other councils in Norfolk—such as South Norfolk district council and North Norfolk district council—with Broadland housing association and others, have no objections in principle to the installation of water meters in their properties. I understand that the Anglia housing association judges each application for the installation of water meters on its merits and supports the installation of meters in homes occupied by elderly tenants. The Wherry housing association in my constituency also agrees to the installation of meters when tenants request them. Single and elderly tenants welcome the opportunity to cut their bills by up to three quarters. Wherry housing association has had no complaints about water metering from its

  1079
  tenants. The tenant profiles of the associations must be broadly similar to that of Norwich city council—they certainly operate in comparable areas. If metering is acceptable to them and to their tenants, it should also be acceptable to the city council.
  The logic of the city council's position is dubious and its motives must be open to the gravest suspicion. I do not believe that the council is in a position to judge who among its tenants will benefit from the installation of water meters. That is a decision that the tenants themselves are best fitted to take. The present system of basing water charges on the former domestic rating system means that bills in Norwich are high because rateable values were high.
  Elderly people and single occupants have higher bills than they would with water meters. For example, a single person pays an average water bill of £294 a year in Anglian Water's region. That could be cut to between £89 and £179 with a water meter. Couples with or without children could save between £75 and £150 per year. Many pensioners and others among the city council's tenants find themselves subsidising other water consumers, including other council tenants, because they are forced to pay for their water on the basis of rateable value. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that cannot be right.
  Pensioners and people who are disabled, or who have large families, or are suffering from illness, are precisely the people who are most likely to be living on a limited income and who are most keen to be able to judge whether they would benefit from careful use of water. Anglian Water has estimated that 70 per cent. of its customers could save at least 10 per cent. on their water bills by using meters, which typically save up to 15 per cent. of water usage.
  Boreholes are already being sunk under Norwich to guarantee future water supplies. Without further water conservation measures, there might have to be a new reservoir—costing about £300 million. Why should council tenants be prevented from cutting their bills and saving water? No council can tell that all future tenants will be disadvantaged by having the opportunity to occupy premises with water meters. Norwich city council assumes that all future tenants will come from large families and will not want water meters. There is no guarantee of either.
  If tenants think that they may benefit from installing water meters, they should be able to choose to have them. The issue in this debate is choice. They should be able to choose to have meters installed without town hall obstruction. The rights of tenants, therefore, must come first and not last in Norwich city council's thinking.
  The attitude of the council is particularly worrying since our local water supplier, Anglian Water plc, has shown itself to be acutely aware of its social responsibilities. It has created a wide range of schemes to help customers meet their water bills. Large, low-income families have been targeted for that aid. Customers can pay by cash, through any post office or high street bank, by direct debit through bank accounts, by instalments paid at post offices or banks, with water savings stamps, which can be purchased at most post offices, through the Girobank or through the post. People on income support can apply for payments to be made direct from their
  1080
  benefits by the Department of Social Security. It is no accident that the Norfolk area has proved to be the second most enthusiastic of all those covered by Anglian Water for accepting water meters.
  Moreover, Anglian Water recently announced that all domestic customers who pay for their water through the use of water meters will have their service pipes from the stop tap to the side of the house maintained free of charge as from 1 January 1997. At present, the owner of the property is responsible for the service pipe unless specific cover is in place. Norwich city council could save itself a good deal of money by encouraging its tenants to go on to water meters, thereby saving it the cost of repairing service pipes.
  Anglian Water has also been conducting trials of special pre-payment methods, using smart cards in Milton Keynes and Wellingborough. The cards enable customers with large, accumulated debts to pay for their water and a small proportion of their arrears on a regular basis. I understand that they have proved extremely popular and that the potential exists for the extension of the technology to other parts of the East Anglia region.
  I want to mention the creation of the water trust fund, which is administered by an independent board of trustees to help customers in serious arrears to make a fresh start. Anglian Water contributed £2 million to that fund earlier in the year, and the first grants have already been made, using the machinery of the citizens advice bureaux.
  The Office of Water Services, the regulatory body for the water industry, believes that metering is the best and fairest long-term method of paying for water. Its view is that all customers should have the option of using water meters and that customers with high discretionary usage should certainly do so.
  Ofwat has the support of its national consumer council for the position that council tenants should have the option of having water meters installed, giving them more control of their bills. The national consumer council believes that local authorities that deny their tenants that option are behaving unreasonably.
  Despite what I said earlier about the case put by Norwich city council, no instance of a risk to health arising from the installation of water meters is known to Ofwat or to the water supply companies. It is clearly in the wider interest of efficient water usage that meters should be installed in new homes and in older ones where tenants desire them. That is one reason why Ofwat has opposed unduly high standing charges for domestic customers and has taken action to balance tariffs.
  The cost of installing meters has been significantly reduced since 1994–95; 23 companies have reduced their charges, five have not changed them since 1994, and no company has increased its installation charges since 1995–96.
  Does the 1991 water legislation require water companies to supply water meters if they are requested by tenants or occupants of residential property? If so, can Norwich city council be sued by its tenants for not allowing them to install meters? The Environment Act 1995 certainly places a duty on water companies to encourage the efficient use of water in their area of operation, a duty that Norwich city council has decided to prevent Anglian Water from fulfilling.
  The sorry truth about water metering in Norwich is that the city council does not trust its tenants to make decisions in their own interests. They are not allowed to choose

  1081
  between metering and the present system of payment, which is to the disadvantage of many groups, especially the elderly, because that would diminish the control that the council exercises over them.
  To allow tenants to make savings on their water bills would compromise their dependent status. Properties with water meters might well prove more attractive than those without. Once the floodgates of metering had opened, the council might be compelled to widen choice for all its tenants. The record of old Labour and new in Norwich suggests that it may be time for the council's control over such a large proportion of the housing stock to be ended, and for modern social landlords, responsive to the needs of tenants, to take up the reins of management in the interests of the wider community.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am sure that many of his constituents will be grateful to him for so forcefully expressing his concerns.
  As my hon. Friend rightly says, he has a background of concern about conservation and water issues, and I am sure that he speaks for many individuals in Norwich, especially the tenants of Norwich city council, when he so clearly expresses his worries about the denial of choice by the council and its failure to take into account the needs of environmental good husbandry. As he rightly said, it is regrettable that tenants are being denied choice and that the needs of the environment are being ignored by the council.
  We accept that the good husbandry of water resources is an important part of sustainable development. It is also part of the challenge of global warming, not least for an already dry area such as East Anglia, as my hon. Friend so clearly stated. The development of new sources of water supply may be necessary, but our first recourse should be to make the best use of existing supplies. Last month, the Government published a comprehensive examination of the problem, "Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action", with a number of action points for the Government, the regulators, the water companies and consumers.
  I shall mention a few of the steps that are being taken. The Government, through the Office of Water Services, are pressing water companies to reduce leakage in their distribution system to an economic minimum. The Director General of Water Services has published each water company's long-tern leakage target and the targets for the next financial year.
  Reducing the use of water through demand management makes sense. Since 1 February, all water companies have had a new duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Efficient use of water means using water-efficient equipment and cutting leakage in customers' pipes, as well as informing the public about the relationship between water use and supply. When all other measures that should be taken have been taken, the key to the efficient use of water must lie with the user. In that respect, my hon. Friend's concerns have great force.
  Domestic demand has been growing over the years, with the widespread use of appliances such as automatic washing machines and the increased ownership of
  1082
  dishwashers. The popularity of gardening and the use of garden sprinklers also has a marked impact in summer. In one hour, a sprinkler can use enough water to supply a family of four for two days. We are not trying to discourage clean cars or green gardens, but there is a strong case for saying that customers should pay for them.
  My hon. Friend argued eloquently for the merits of water metering as a means of conserving water resources and postponing or eliminating the need for new boreholes or reservoirs with all their environmental implications. I agree with his remarks. The encouragement of metering is a key element in the Government's water strategy. There is widespread resentment, especially in times of water shortage, that neighbours can be using vastly different quantities of water without any effect on their bills. Metering is fair: one pays only for what one uses. It is also successful.
  Trials have shown an immediate reduction both in water use and in many customers' bills. Customers are being denied that opportunity by Norwich city council and water use is being affected adversely. I must make it clear that the Government do not control or impose the method of charging for water. That decision is for the water companies. The proviso is that they should operate within the rules set by statute and supervised by the Director General of Water Services.
  On the method of charging, the law simply requires that companies should not set prices that are unduly discriminatory or preferential. The decision is up to water companies but, of course, the Government have a view on the charging method, which we have spelt out. We believe that the gradual extension of metering, together with the development of more sophisticated tariff structures, has an essential role to play in managing demand for water. In general, we believe that the introduction of water metering should be selective and that switching to metered charging should be voluntary for occupiers who are charged in their present properties on the basis of rateable values. However, new properties should be fitted with meters as the norm, as should those with high external use for garden watering and swimming pools. Where an occupier moves to a dwelling with a meter, charging should be metered.
  I welcome the fact that companies are reducing the cost of their voluntary meter option schemes and that eight companies, including Anglian Water, offer free installation for customers who want meters. That is the Government's policy on metering, although it is for companies to make the choice of charging methods. This is the background to what is happening in Norwich.
  Anglian Water is pressing ahead with the installation of water meters. I understand that it has adopted a programme of installing meters in all properties. That is a long undertaking, with a target of 40 per cent. coverage by 2000. Where it fits meters, it gives existing customers the choice of continuing on the old rateable value basis or switching to a metered bill, whichever customers choose as the lower for them. For normal domestic uses, it is only with new or substantially altered properties or where new customers enter properties that already have meters that the company requires metered payment. In those cases, the customer should know beforehand what he is taking on as part of the dwelling. Anglian also requires metered payment when the customer uses a garden sprinkler or has a swimming pool. Anglian will install meters for

  1083
  customers on request. That offers many customers a quick route to immediate savings, as my hon. Friend's calculations showed.
  I understand that Norwich city council has adopted a policy of root and branch opposition to water metering. It is apparently not interested in the environmental arguments for saving water or in giving its tenants the choice of whether to be metered. It should be noted that for many of the least well-off, especially single-person households and pensioners, metering would offer savings on their current water bills with no change in their water consumption habits. Meters offer every household greater control over water bills. The sensible use of water can go a long way to trim bills.
  My hon. Friend asked about the legal position on the installation of meters, and wanted to know whether tenants have any recourse if the city council obstructs the installation of meters even when they have been requested. When Anglian Water or any other water company is carrying out a programme of meter installation, the company gives notice to customers and then has powers, like other statutory undertakers, to enter premises and fit meters even over the objections of the council or any other landlord.
  In the long term, Norwich city council or any other council cannot prevent the steady progress of meter installation. Where, however, the company is fitting at the voluntary request of the tenant, the situation is different. In meeting the customer's request for a meter, Anglian Water is not invoking any powers of compulsion.
  There is a duty on local authority tenants under the Housing Act 1985 not to carry out an improvement without the consent of the landlord, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The law treats adding a water meter as an improvement. If the local authority landlord refuses consent, the tenant may not make an unauthorised improvement. Where the tenant has asked for the meter, it is like the tenant calling the builders in. It is up to the tenant to ensure that he has the necessary consent.
  1084
  If the water company is asked by a tenant to install a meter, it will assume that the customer has any necessary consent. It will continue installing on request. If a tenant has a meter installed without the consent of the landlord, that is in law a matter between the landlord and the tenant, not the water company.
  If a tenant is refused consent, his recourse would not be to sue the landlord. The law provides that such consent may not be unreasonably withheld. That would be the issue. In the end, it would be for the courts to decide whether the council had been reasonable in withholding its consent.
  I hope that the issue will not come before the courts. I hope also that Norwich city council will listen to the force of my hon. Friend's arguments and reconsider its policy on water metering. I understand that, even now, the eastern customers service committee of Ofwat, which represents the customers of Anglian Water, has written to the city council to ask it to support water metering.
  Whatever policy the council adopts, the legal position is that it cannot prevent the progressive installation of meters under Anglian Water's rolling programme. The council can delay only by depriving individual tenants of the choice of voluntarily moving at once to lower metered bills.
  Metering is the fair and sustainable way to charge for water use. I hope, as I have said, that the debate will be heard by the council, and that it will listen to the reasonable arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend. I hope also that it will consider the interests of its tenants, including those who wish to exercise there choice in this matter, and grant them that choice. In doing so, it will act in the interests of consumer choice and in the wider interests of the environment. Those are two forceful arguments in favour of the council acceding to the reasonable arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many organisations have been awarded funds from the national lottery five good causes; what is the total amount in pounds; and how much of the money in percentage terms from each of the five good causes has not yet been paid out to these organisations. [3278]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The rate at which funds flow to successful schemes is determined by the time it takes to conclude award negotiations and the requirements to make staged payments. It is less than 18 months since the awards process began.

  When a lottery award announcement is made, it is not necessarily to a project which is ready to begin immediately. This is likely to be true of only a few well planned and/or relatively straightforward projects. In most cases, further negotiation will be necessary. An award announcement should, therefore, be looked at more as an award in principle—as is the case with private finance initiative schemes—where it is accepted that some work still needs to be done before the project can get off the ground. Based on advice, the typical time gaps between award and spending on a project can be between nine and 15 months for major construction schemes and three and six months for smaller schemes.

  The lottery distributors have identified the main reasons for such time lags. These are:
  Locating partnership funding. A common approach is to apply for lottery funding first and then confirm partnership funding contributions. Most distributors wish to pay out lottery money

  Good cause sector

  Number of awards

  Total value of awards £million

  Total grant payments to date £ million

  Percentage of total value of grants awarded but not yet paid out

  Percentage of awardees in receipt of first payments

  Sport

  2,217

  372·8

  80·8

  78

  53

  Arts

  1,704

  636

  106·4

  83

  63

  Charities

  4,757

  318·4

  74·3

  77

  73

  Heritage

  532

  326·2

  70·9

  78

  35

  Millennium

  77

  760·1

  14·6

  98

  29

  Total

  9,287

  2,413·5

  347

  86

  64

  National Lottery (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all payments from the national lottery awarded in Derbyshire. [2841]
  538
  pro rata to partnership spending, although this is not a hard and fast rule and distributors can help with short-term cash flow difficulties. On committed schemes, each £1 of lottery funds is currently matched by £1.41 of partnership money.
  Detailed design of buildings etc. These may have to be submitted where sketch drawings have been accepted at assessment stage. Design competitions must sometimes be held. My Department has asked distributors to ensure lottery-funded buildings are well designed.
  Obtaining full planning permission or listed building consent.
  Re-negotiating leases with landlords where the scheme involves an extension or improvement to an existing facility.
  Completing legal documentation on conditions. This can he quite time consuming given the funding arrangements and novelty of many schemes.
  Tendering of projects—this can be made more difficult by lack of administrative support in some voluntary organisations. Higher value schemes may have to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community and European Union rules on tendering met.
  Seasonal factors can affect work on construction projects (especially true of educational institutions where work might be able to take place only during the school holidays).
  The expenditure profile for small and large construction projects often means that initial expenditure is low.

  The distributors do, of course, wish to move projects effectively from award to completion. I do not, however, see any easy way to shorten the process, but my Department will continue to monitor this situation. It is important that capital projects are set up correctly otherwise they may not achieve value for money.

  Distributors must also avoid forcing applicants to do too much preparatory work and spend too much money before the award in principle. Competition for lottery money is fierce, and is likely to become more so as the nature of the projects which the distributing bodies can support widens.

  Payments for lottery schemes are staged to reflect the applicants' requirements for the funds. It would he imprudent to pay all the funds in advance. Nearly two thirds of all award recipients have received some funds.

  As at 6 November, the figures and the number of award recipients in receipt of their first payment from the lottery are:

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his answer 18 November 1996, Official Report, column 686]: The list of awards is as follows:
  539

  National Lottery awards in Derbyshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title desc.

  Local authority

  Award amount £

  UK constituency

  Arts

  26 June 1996

  Derby City Council

  To convert the Chapel Street Building into an arts centre

  Derby

  1,573,500

  Derby North

  Sports

  7 August 1995

  Derby City Council

  Oakwood Sports Centre

  Derby

  400,000

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Padley Day Centre

  Enable those disadvantaged to obtain improved quality of life.

  Derby

  344,000

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  The Glebe Field Trust

  Community, day and respite care center for Crich and associated villages.

  Amber Valley

  300,000

  West Derbyshire

  Sports

  25 March 1996

  Belper Meadows Sports Club

  Artificial turf pitch plus 2 multi-use floodlit game areas.

  Amber Valley

  243,700

  West Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derbyshire Childrens Holiday Centre

  Benefit low-income families by providing much needed respite care of children at a holiday Centre.

  Derby

  235,000

  Derby south

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derby Changes

  To establish a leaving care support centre in Derby to provide material and emotional support to young people.

  Derby

  217,037

  Derby North

  Sports

  10 May 1996

  National Trust East Midlands Region

  Construction of a flagged, pitched and drained walking surface to sections of the high peak walking route.

  High Peak

  217,000

  High peak

  Charity

  23 October 1995

  Hadhari Project

  Care in the community for mental health sufferers.

  Derby

  193,000

  Derby North

  Sports

  24 April 1996

  Derby City Council

  Development of a pavilion and sports facilities at Chellaston Park.

  Derby

  182,000

  South Derbyshire

  Sports

  8 October 1996

  Long Eaton United Football Club

  Construction of football centre.

  Erewash

  159,474

  Erewash

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Barrow Hill And Hollingwood Community Association

  To establish and equip a community hall to provide a focus for a local deprived community.

  Chesterfield

  150,000

  North-east Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derby Law Centre

  Increase the advice available to disadvantaged groups in Derby.

  Derby.

  140,000

  Derby South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derby West Indian Community Association

  Motivate young disaffected Afro-Caribbeans through group interaction.

  Derby

  126,906

  Derby South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derbyshire Rural Community Council

  The project will counter the effects of low income/isolation in rural Derbyshire.

  Derbyshire Dales

  124,294

  West Derbyshire

  Sports

  23 February 1996

  The Royal School For The Deaf Development Trust

  The Dukes Barn extension.

  Derbyshire Dales

  92,485

  West Derbyshire

  Sports

  7 November 1995

  Elvaston Cricket Club

  New cricket pavilion.

  Erewash

  86,002

  Erewash

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Home Start Swadlingcote And District

  Secure permanent accommodation and expand our services to meet increasing needs through providing a secure safe environment.

  South Derbyshire

  85,920

  South Derbyshire

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Derby Asian Horticulture Resource Training Initiative

  To improve and maintain all facilities until self funding is achieved

  Derby

  85,000

  Derby South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  The Goseley Community Centre

  Build and equip a community centre on disadvantaged/isolated estate.

  South Derbyshire

  83,300

  South Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Alternatives Activity Centre

  Provide firm foundations for choices, opportunities, training and education for people with learning difficulties.

  Derby

  81,840

  Derby North

  540 541

  National Lottery awards in Derbyshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title desc.

  Local authority

  Award amount £

  UK constituency

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derby Council For Voluntary Service Limited

  Increase the awareness of local Youths of services which are available to them and how to access them.

  Derby

  81,802

  Derby South

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Heanor Parish Church Salcare

  Expansion of furniture service to low income and disadvantaged families.

  Amber Valley

  79,783

  Amber Valley

  Sports

  1 May 1996

  Nutbrook Cricket Club

  Pavilion.

  Erewash

  78,096

  Erewash

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Mansfield And District Multiple Sclerosis Society

  To enhance lives of disabled people in a depressed area.

  Bolsover

  78,000

  Bolsover

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Cross Roads Care Derby And South Derbyshire

  Giving carers a break, time to be me.

  Derby

  69,036

  Derby South

  Sports

  24 January 1996

  Langley Mills United Cricket Club

  New pavilion.

  Amber Valley

  60,670

  Amber Valley

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Fairplay

  Promote training, social and leisure opportunities for disabled young people in Chesterfield.

  Chesterfield

  60,000

  Chesterfield

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  1st South Normanton Scout and Guide Group

  South Normanton Scout and Guide Group new scout hut project.

  Bolsover

  59,300

  Bolsover

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  The Ace Club

  The establishment of a 'Before and After' school club.

  Derby

  58,118

  Derby South

  Sports

  6 June 1995

  Pyegrove Tennis Club

  Redevelopment at Glossop Pyegrove Tennis Club.

  High Peak

  55,150

  High peak

  Arts

  17 May 1995

  Tintwistle Band

  Replacement band room.

  High Peak

  52,709

  High Peak

  Arts

  17 May 1995

  Royal School for the Deaf and College for Deaf People

  Sign language video library.

  Derby

  50,000

  Derby North

  Sports

  01 June 1996

  Birchvale and Thornsett Cricket Club

  New clubhouse with disabled facilities, to replace old prefab pavilion.

  High Peak

  47,657

  High Peak

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Home Start Ilkeston

  To help young families with parenting skills, with the aim of preventing family breakdown.

  Erewash

  47,400

  Erewash

  Sports

  09 January 1996

  Derby City Council (Sunnyhill Community Centre)

  Development of new bowls green and pavilion.

  Derby

  46,400

  Derby South

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Take A Break

  Opportunity for inner city women to reach their full potential.

  Derby

  43,000

  Derby South

  Charity

  23 October 1995

  National Association of Drama with the Visually Handicapped

  To improve the Association's efficiency.

  Erewash

  42,436

  Erewash

  Sports

  03 July 1996

  Clowne Miners Welfare

  Refurbishment of existing pavilion with ladies and gentlemen's toilet, including disabled toilet. Ramp for wheelchair users. Replace existing storage area.

  Bolsover

  41,769

  Bolsover

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Derwent Rural Counselling Service

  Improve the mental health of communities affected by rural deprivation.

  Derbyshire Dales

  41,700

  West Derbyshire

  Arts

  15 November 1995

  The Marple Band

  Purchase of instruments.

  Derbyshire Dales

  41,400

  High Peak

  Heritage

  26 April 1995

  Eyam Museum Ltd.

  Eyam Museum, Eyam.

  Derbyshire Dales

  41,125

  West Derbyshire

  Sports

  09 January 1996

  High Peak Borough Council (Glossop Sports Centre)

  Convert sauna and sunbed room to create a fitness suite.

  High Peak

  39,000

  High Peak

  Arts

  13 September 1995

  High Peak Borough Council

  Construction and erection of Victorian style band-stand.

  High Peak

  36,090

  High Peak

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  The Derby Furniture Project

  The Derby Community Electrical Project.

  Derby

  36,000

  Derby North

  Arts

  24 January 1996

  Newhall Band

  Purchase of instruments.

  South Derbyshire

  32,863

  South Derbyshire

  542 543

  National Lottery awards in Derbyshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title desc.

  Local authority

  Award amount£

  UK constituency

  Arts

  02 April 1996

  Glossopdale Community College Band Trust

  Purchase of instruments.

  High Peak

  32,610

  High Peak

  Charity

  23 October 1995

  Derwent Stepping Stones Nursery and Community Training Centre

  Establish a community based employment and training programme.

  Derby

  30,000

  Derby North

  Heritage

  14 August 1996

  Holy Trinity Church PCC

  Holy Trinity Church, dinting-roof

  High Peak

  29,700

  High Peak

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Swadlincote Rifle and Pistol Club

  To construct an airgun range to ISU specifications range.

  South Derbyshire

  29,207

  South Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  The Winchester Club

  Improving the lives of people with learning difficulties.

  Derby

  25,050

  Derby South

  Arts

  13 September 1995

  Commotion Theatre Company

  Purchase of touring vehicle.

  Derbyshire Dales

  25,008

  West Derbyshire

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Northeast Derbyshire Citizens Advice Bureau

  Helpline service for the deaf and speech impaired.

  North-east Derbyshire

  24,317

  North-east Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derby Children's Friendship Group

  Providing fun, educational breaks for Derby's low income family youth.

  Derby

  23,750

  Derby North

  Arts

  26 June 1996

  Nottingham City Transport Band

  Purchase of instruments.

  Erewash

  22,735

  Erewash

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Peak Dale Youth Motorcycle Club

  To link ability, training and safety to motorcycle riding.

  High Peak

  22,000

  High Peak

  Arts

  15 November 1995

  Ireland Colliery Chesterfield Band

  New instruments.

  Chesterfield

  17,915

  Chesterfield

  Sports

  6 May 1996

  South Wingfield Cricket Club

  Artificial practice cricket wicket and to increase playing area.

  Amber Valley

  17,838

  Amber Valley

  Sports

  7 March 1996

  Stanton By Dale Cricket Club

  Extension to the pavilion to accommodate showers and additional kitchen facilities Cricket square also requires drainage facility and artificial pitch.

  Erewash

  17,000

  Erewash

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Challenger Disabled Sailing Group

  To develop the potential for disabled people to go sailing.

  North-east Derbyshire

  15,793

  North-east Derbyshire

  Sports

  9 March 1996

  Swarkestone Sailing Club

  Replacement of training fleet with 6 modern dinghies.

  South Derbyshire

  15,660

  South Derbyshire

  Charity

  23 October 1995

  Derby Shopmobility

  To ensure independence through the free use of our equipment.

  Derby

  15,000

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Chesapeake Playgroup

  To help to keep the playgroup up and running.

  Derby

  15,000

  Derby North

  Arts

  2 April 1996

  Partington Theatre Club

  General refurbishment and installation of fire escape.

  High Peak

  15,000

  High Peak

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Duckmanton and District Community Transport

  Provide a community minibus for the disadvantaged inhabitants of Duckmanton.

  Chesterfield

  14,500

  Chesterfield

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Peak Park Trust

  Restoration of cart shed at Eccles House for new workspace.

  High Peak

  14,170

  High Peak

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Ashgate Hospice

  To improve access to Hospice services for the terminally ill.

  North-east Derbyshire

  13,750

  North-east Derbyshire

  Heritage

  19 September 1995

  Peel Centre Charitable Trust

  The Peel Centre, Dronfield.

  North-east Derbyshire

  12,500

  North-east Derbyshire

  Sports

  6 September 1995

  Derbyshire Sailing Endeavour

  Provide shore facilities for disabled sailing and a training boat.

  Derbyshire Dales

  12,283

  West Derbyshire

  Sports

  9 August 1996

  Long Eaton Sub-Aqua Club

  Purchase boat and trailer.

  Erewash

  11,992

  Erewash

  Sports

  15 May 1995

  Buxworth Cricket Club

  Renewal of sports pavilion.

  High Peak

  11,400

  High Peak

  Sports

  9 January 1996

  Derby City Council (Boulton Lane Community Centre

  Upgrade and improve existing muga to synthetic playing surface. Providing new floodlights. Extending care parking area.

  Derby

  11,000

  South Derbyshire

  544 545

  National Lottery awards in Derbyshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title desc.

  Local authority

  Award amount £

  UK constituency

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  North Derbyshire Women's Aid

  Accessible computer system for organisation.

  Chesterfield

  8,744

  Chesterfield

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Relate, Derby and District Marriage Guidance

  To assist disadvantaged clients to help themselves and their families.

  Derby

  8,100

  Derby North

  Sports

  5 June 1996

  Glossop Junior Football Club

  Floodlighting of artificial football pitch(red shale all weather).

  High Peak

  8,050

  High Peak

  Sports

  5 July 1995

  Lullington Park Cricket Club

  Extended practise and dressing room facilities.

  South Derbyshire

  8,000

  South Derbyshire

  Arts

  21 February 1996

  Czuplak Ukrainian Folk-Dance Company and Musicians

  Sound mixing console and PA system.

  Derby

  7,943

  Derby South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Relate—Chesterfield and North-East Derbyshire Marriage Guidance

  Relate-line—Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Telephone Counselling Service.

  Chesterfield

  7,713

  Chesterfield

  Arts

  13 September 1995

  Gresley Male Voice Choir

  Modern Musical instruments and amplification equipment.

  South Derbyshire

  7,500

  South Derbyshire

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Blindfold Club Derby

  Blindness need not mean being confined to ones home.

  Derby

  7,500

  Derby South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derby Toc H Childrens Camp

  Replace a bad weather Play marquee that has become unserviceable.

  Derby

  7,500

  Derby North

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Child Development Centre Toy Library

  To work with a local school to design and build equipment and toys for children with special needs.

  Chesterfield

  7,112

  Chesterfield

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Fun For All

  To improve recreation and social opportunities for deprived young people.

  Bolsover

  6,600

  Bolsover

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  North Wingfield Disabled Miners' Group

  Enable the disabled group members to retain their independence.

  Chesterfield

  6,182

  North-east Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group

  To provide computer equipment/software for the organisation.

  Derbyshire Dales

  6,000

  West Derbyshire

  Arts

  26 June 1996

  East of England Orchestra Ltd.

  Administration and education equipment.

  Derby

  5,094

  Derby North

  Arts

  17 May 1995

  The Merrill Community School

  Purchase if instruments for the Music Centre at Merrill School.

  South Derbyshire

  5,000

  South Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Keldholme Community Association

  To enhance the facilities for four groups within a Community Association located in a poor area of Derby.

  Derby

  4,950

  Derby South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Highview Play Group

  Playgroup

  Derby

  4,870

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Sunnycroft Old Peoples Welfare

  Sunnycroft Club improving pensioners lifestyle through community action

  Chesterfield

  4,860

  North-east Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Mary Swanwick Playscheme

  Provide a holiday playscheme for our local community.

  Chesterfield

  4,114

  Chesterfield

  Sports

  1 May 1996

  Allestree Cricket Club

  Equipment/Artificial practice facilities

  Derby

  3,850

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Lakeside Pre-school Playgroup

  To give children a safe welcoming environment to play in.

  Erewash

  3,500

  Erewash

  Sports

  4 October 1995

  Parwich British Legion Cricket Club

  Artificial pitch with removable nets, sight screens and improvements to scoreboard

  Derbyshire Dales

  3,431

  West Derbyshire

  546 547

  National Lottery awards in Derbyshire

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Project title desc.

  Local authority

  Award amount £

  UK constituency

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  145th Derby Hilltop Scout Group

  Provide renovation of outdated facilities outside the scope of fundraising.

  Derby

  3,150

  Derby North

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  21st Ilkeston Scout Group

  Socially deprived area. Will benefit entire community.

  Erewash

  3,000

  Erewash

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Ripley Neighbourhood Care Scheme

  To enable us to help older people in Ripley.

  Amber Valley

  3,000

  Amber Valley

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Gamesley Toy Library

  To improve run down toy library facility on housing estate.

  High Peak

  2,700

  High Peak

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Campaign for Tackling Acquired Deafness

  To provide equipment to hearing impaired people on low incomes.

  Derby

  2,652

  Derby South

  Sports

  5 September 1996

  Brailsford and Ednaston Cricket Club

  Non Turf cricket wicket.

  Derbyshire Dales

  2,500

  West Derbyshire

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Bolsover Elderly Self Help Group

  To give socially isolated elderly people a quality of life.

  Bolsover

  2,397

  Bolsover

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Harpur Hill Playground Appeal

  To provide a safe, stimulating, pleasant environment for our children.

  High Peak

  2,000

  High Peak

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Hadfield Centre Playgroup

  Hadfield Centre Playgroups essential introduction to pre-school IT.

  High Peak

  1,964

  High Peak

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Rathbone Community Industry

  To improve users' literacy and competitiveness in the labour market.

  Derby

  1,948

  Derby South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Stanley Playworks

  To improve the standard of local children's lives.

  Chesterfield

  1,800

  North-east Derbyshire

  Charity

  23 October 1995

  Stanley Village Playgroup

  Maintain essential community development utilise and maximise interest.

  Derby

  1,700

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Darley Dale Primary Out of School Club

  To secure the future of the club financially for the next three years.

  Derbyshire Dales

  1,086

  West Derbyshire

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  West End Toy Library

  Develop local community supporting those who are disadvantaged.

  Derby

  1,000

  Derby North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Derbyshire County Childminding Association

  To support childminders by offering training opportunities for all.

  Derby

  820

  Derby South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Playwell Parent and Toddler Group

  To provide a wider range of toys and activities.

  Erewash

  600

  Erewash

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Eckington Friendship Club

  To help elderly people in safe and pleasant environment.

  North-east Derbyshire

  500

  North-east Derbyshire

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Laser Venture Scount Unit

  Purchase camping equipment to partake in prestigious Queen Scout Award.

  North-east Derbyshire

  500

  North-east Derbshire

  Total (112 awards)

  7,105,070

  548

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Blight (Compensation)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has so far been made by the interdepartmental committee on compensation for property affected by rail and road schemes. [2000]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many submissions he has received on the consultation paper on blight arising from major infrastructure projects; [5238]

  (2) when he expects the interdepartmental working group on blight to report; and what plans he has to bring forward proposals to implement its recommendations. [5239]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the progress report of the interdepartmental working group on blight.

  This group, which was set up in March, published a discussion paper in June. Sixty-one responses were received. A sub-group held discussions with officials in France, Germany and the Netherlands, and further briefing was received in respect of Belgium, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, the USA and Japan.

  The Halifax building society has been invited to undertake a study into trends in property prices in areas which have experienced major infrastructure developments. Work on this study is in hand. A further study, commissioned in October 1995, into the operation of compulsory purchase procedures concludes this month. The group will be considering the final report of this study to see how its findings might inform the group's own work.

  The group is now considering a range of options for changes to law and practice. Their consideration will include an assessment both of direct costs of implementing change, and of the wider implications for compulsory acquisition and compensation. I have asked that the final report should be submitted as early as possible in the new year. Any changes which we might propose to existing law and practice would be subject to consultation in the usual way.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4492]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is the lead Department for ensuring that Government policies and programmes, including its own, take proper account of environmental concerns, in accordance with the 1990 environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", and "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy", published in 1994.

  To this end, the Government have made a repeated commitment in successive White Paper annual reports to subject their policies to environmental appraisal. In 1991, the Department published "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", which gives extensive guidance on how to
  550
  integrate environmental considerations into Government policy assessments. Green Ministers recently reaffirmed the need for all Departments to have adequate systems to ensure that the environmental implications of their policies were properly considered. Consultants are evaluating Government Departments' experiences with the guide and will report early next year. Green Ministers intend to publish a booklet of case studies in the new year, showing good examples of environmental appraisal in Departments.

  My Department aims continually to reduce the impact of its own activities on the environment and to improve the management of its own resources. Its management audit services division has been trained to undertake environmental audits and has, for example, recently examined management and waste issues as part of the Department's strategy to reduce waste by 15 per cent. over two years.

  Another of the Department's published objectives is to reduce the environmental impact of its buildings, where practicable, by undertaking objective assessments using BREEAM—the Building Research Establishment's environmental assessment method. Preliminary assessments of the Department's two new headquarters buildings—Eland house and Ashdown house in central London—have been carried out. As a result, the designs incorporate features such as the use of energy-efficient double-glazed panels, specially treated to reflect heat back into the building; displacement ventilation with static cooling and heating; combined heat and power systems, which use less gas and use waste heat to supply hot water, space heating and power for the cooling system; efficient boilers, with low nitrogen dioxide burners for supplementary heating; heat exchangers and heat exhaust recovery to avoid the loss of energy to the atmosphere in cooling towers.

  My Department supports the use of BREEAM across the wider Government estate and green Ministers agreed recently that all Departments should use the BREEAM system when commissioning new or substantial refurbishment of existing ones. My Department has also commissioned the Environment Agency to produce do it yourself environmental performance checklist for premises managers on the Government estate, which will help to promote further improvement in the use of energy, water and other resources, in reducing waste and saving money.

  My Department has been active in promoting environmental management and auditing more widely. As the United Kingdom competent body for administering the EC eco-management and audit scheme—EMAS—the Department has for the last two years promoted the scheme widely to industry—through national advertising campaigns and regional events; by publishing guides about the scheme and how it operates; by producing information videos and regular newsletters; through direct mailing to business; and by the introduction of a grant—Small company environmental energy management scheme—to help smaller businesses participate in the scheme. The UK has also led the way in promoting EMAS by introducing the first national extension of the scheme, now a fully operational version in the local government sector. My Department is conducting an exercise to test the feasibility of applying EMAS in a pilot area of housing policy and programme expenditure.
  551
  The Government strongly encourage the take-up of EMAS by business because the scheme provides a rigorous but voluntary framework for managing, improving and reporting publicly on environmental performance. The scheme is also proving to be an effective tool for improving efficiency and competitiveness. Case studies, based on the first industrial sites registered under EMAS, and which demonstrate the environmental and business benefits of the scheme, will be published shortly.

  In partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry, my Department sponsors the environmental technology best practice programme to promote better environmental practices that help to reduce business costs for UK industry and commerce. The programme disseminates information and advice on environmental technologies and techniques, including the benefits of implementing environmental management systems and audits. Examples of best practice are promoted throughout industry by means of environmental performance guides, best practice case studies and guides, workshops, seminars and other events.

  In promoting EMAS, my Department has also encouraged take-up of the complementary British industry standard for environmental management systems, BS 7750. This was the first standard of its kind in the world, coinciding with the development of EMAS, and it has contributed greatly to the agreement of a new international standard, ISO 14001, which will be replacing national standards and will provide industry with a convenient route towards EMAS registration. I am delighted that my Department's own office services division has recently been awarded a certificate of compliance with both BS 7750 and ISO 14001 for its environmental management system—the first award to a central Government Department.

  EU Environmental Directives
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the report on the proposal in the European Parliament for a council directive amending directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, A4–0343/96. [4723]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The common position adopted by the European Council of Ministers on a directive amending directive 85/337/EEC will greatly improve the consistency and quality of decision making within the European Community. It is now for the European Commission to consider the report and put forward an opinion to the Council.

  Solrec, Heysham (Air Pollution)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what caused the release into the atmosphere of material being processed at Solrec at Heysham; and what action he has taken to prevent a recurrence. [4714]

  Mr. Clappison
  On 19 August 1996 there was an unauthorised release from the process for the application of steam distillation to produce solid residues at Solrec in Heysham. This process is used for solvent recovery. The unauthorised release was caused by a runaway exothermic 552
  reaction in a vessel, which caused pressure to build up in the vessel, resulting in a controlled release via a safety device.

  As a result of the incident, the Environment Agency served a prohibition notice on Solrec Ltd. under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This prohibits the company from operating the process until it has produced a procedure to demonstrate that the process can be performed without producing exothermic decomposition of the residues.

  I further understand from the Environment Agency that Solrec intends to abandon the particular process which gave rise to the unauthorised release.

  Sustainable Development (EU Report)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the report by the European Parliament on the review of the European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development, A4-0300/96 with reference to his Department's policy on sustainable development. [4724]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department will be assessing in due course the first reading opinion of the European Parliament on the report, given on 13 November 1996.

  Rainforest Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on the outcome of the meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity, with particular reference to progress made to the conservation of tropical rainforests. [4507]

  Mr. Clappison
  This meeting, held in Buenos Aires from 4 to 15 November, successfully reached agreement on continued progress under the convention on a number of fronts. These included commitment to priority work on the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity, including the endorsement of a worldwide initiative for taxonomy developed by the subsidiary body to the convention earlier this year. Work programmes were agreed on agricultural and forest biodiversity. The latter will complement and not duplicate the work of the intergovernmental panel on forests and any successor process.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the ministerial segment on 13 and 14 November and called for greater focus in priority setting under this convention. He also stressed the importance of national target setting and reporting, along the lines already under way in the UK, to enable global assessment of progress and efforts to implement the convention.

  Sellafield Nuclear Plant (Discharges)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the permissible limits set for the annual discharge of nitrous oxide from Sellafield; and what quantities of nitrous oxide were emitted by British Nuclear Fuels from Sellafield in each of the past 10 years. [4721]
  553
  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency monitors releases of, and set limits for, oxides of nitrogen NOx under the integrated pollution control regime. The description, oxides of nitrogen, includes nitrous oxide N2O as well as nitric oxide NO and nitrogen dioxide NO2.

  Oxides of nitrogen were released by the large boilers, which were regulated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These have now closed and data are available only for the years 1993 and 1994, as follows:

  Year

  Annual release limit tonnes per year

  Actual release tonnes per year

  1993

  1,550

  177·3

  1994

  2,132

  200

  Integrated pollution control authorisations have been issued this year for the Magnox and Thorp processes with the following limits for NOx

  Process

  Annual release limit tonnes per year

  Magnox

  35

  Thorp

  90

  Actual release data will be available from 1997.

  Planning Constraints
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that planning constraints on agricultural buildings are applied equally to small and large farm holdings; and if he will make a statement. [4923]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans to amend the thresholds for agricultural permitted development rights in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, under which holdings of less than 5 hectares enjoy more limited rights than larger holdings.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5085]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitment arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Housing (Population Threshold)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the basis for the proposed 554
  population threshold to be used as the main criterion in defining a rural area for the purposes of the rural exemption for housing association tenants from the purchase grant scheme; and if he will make a statement. [5010]

  Mr. Clappison
  The new purchase grant scheme will allow more housing association tenants the choice of buying their own home at a discount funded by a Government grant. Landlords will receive the full market value of any property sold under the scheme, and will have to set aside sale proceeds to provide replacement properties to help other families in need.

  We announced in last year's rural White Paper our proposal to exclude small rural villages from the scheme. The aim of the rural exemption is to protect the supply of social housing in small rural villages where there would be a particular difficulty in securing replacement homes. In larger towns there is greater scope for a replacement home to be provided either through development or the purchase of existing properties.

  We have consulted on the detailed proposed designations for every county and area of England using a population guideline of 3,000 people. We believe that this identifies those small settlements that need to be protected, and it is consistent with the approach of our rural housing programmes. We indicated that we would consider cases referred to us where a settlement's population exceeded 3,000, but we would want to establish that there was a special reason why the settlement concerned faced similar problems to smaller settlements in replacing homes sold.

  We expect to announce the outcome of the consultation exercise shortly.

  Mr right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also consulted on a different approach to be used in Wales.

  Pleasure Boats
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the basis for the decision to remove the requirement for local authority licences for pleasure boats on waters owned or managed by British Waterways and the Environment Agency; and what is the expected saving to(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector from the proposed deregulation order. [4978]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Powers available to local authorities under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 to license pleasure boats duplicate those available to British Waterways on navigations that it manages. The Government have therefore decided to disapply the local authority powers in those circumstances. Powers available to the Environment Agency are less comprehensive than those of British Waterways. In the light of the recent consultation exercise, the Government are therefore reconsidering the inclusion of the Environment Agency in the proposed deregulation order. It is not possible to estimate the expected savings, but in future hire boat businesses which operate on deregulated waters and which have been subject to local authority licensing will benefit financially by having to pay licence fees to only one licensing authority.

  Bricks
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of weeks' supply of bricks held in stock. [5364]

  Mr. Clappison
  At the end of September, the latest date for which information is available, there were just over one billion bricks in stock, representing some 17½ weeks' deliveries at current rates of delivery.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the ways in which her Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if she will make a statement. [4542]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are committed to carrying out the Department's work efficiently, with minimal negative environmental impact. We have undertaken energy audits, and included environmental objectives in the Department's business plan. Our energy consumption continues to fall in line with Government policy. For example, following the connection of the Department's Moorfoot building to the Sheffield combined heat and power station in 1995, 95 per cent. of Moorfoot's heat now comes from a green source.

  In October, I launched the schools environmental assessment method which encourages and enables schools to evaluate their environmental impact, and which also includes revised energy targets for new school buildings.

  School Inspections (Manningham)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the main conclusions of the Office for Standards in Education report following the inspection of schools in the Manningham area of Bradford; if she will list the schools included in that inspection; and if she will make a statement. [4387]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information is collected centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) her Department and (ii) agencies accountable to her Department. [5086]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the PFI. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregated projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to 556
  arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4544]

  Mr. Willetts
  My Department and its agencies play a full part in supporting the initiatives being carried forward in response to the 1990 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", including membership of the green Ministers group. The Department implements an annual green housekeeping action plan, which is subject to regular audit.

  Examples of specific initiatives undertaken include:
  1. Work following a study into the feasibility of contract energy management has resulted in a reduction of over-capacity in the water heating system in the Cabinet Office buildings at Nos. 68 to 72 Whitehall and in Downing street. The remodelled system provides flexibility whilst continuing to recognise the need for standby facilities to be readily available.
  2. In the security facilities executive, the Government car service was one of the first organisations to sign up to the London clean air charter and has adopted CityClean and low sulphur diesel fuels. All GCS cars are fitted with catalytic converters and gas powered vehicles are on trial.

  Where appropriate, further examples are recorded in the Department's and its agencies' annual reports.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4543]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4538]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of his Department's provision for the Sudan; what plans there are to increase it; and if he will make a statement. [4783]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK has committed nearly £13 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan and Sudanese refugees bilaterally and through the European Community since the start of 1995. Future assistance will depend on levels of humanitarian need.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5084]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Royal Family (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 167, how much of the total cost to his Department arising from visits abroad by members of the royal family in 1995–96 related to clothing. [3204]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: In 1995–96 the total cost to this Department of clothing for official visits overseas by members of the royal family and those accompanying them was £47,452.

  As I advised in my answer to the hon. Member on 18 July Official Report, column 610, high profile and worthy representation of Britain abroad inevitably involves additional expenditure on clothes by members of the royal family and certain of those accompanying them.

  It is right that such expenditure is met by the Government for official overseas visits undertaken at the Government's request.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5081]
  558
  Mr. Streeter
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under PFI. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under PFI would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Attorney-General what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5082]

  The Attorney-General
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information of future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projection of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

WALES

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of staff, employed full-time or part-tune by his Department, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [3574]

  Mr. Hague
  For 1996–97, I estimate the cost of staff employed in my press office to be £335,000 and in my publicity branch to be £270,000.

  Alcoholism
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) people and (b) children under the age of 18 years have been diagnosed as alcoholics in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4411]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, the number of finished consultant episodes in NHS hospitals in Wales in each of the last five years where the primary diagnosis was alcohol dependency syndrome is given in the following table. The figures do not relate to the number of people treated as one person may have more than one finished consultant episode during the period. Only those admitted to NHS hospitals are included.
  559

  Finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of alcohol dependency syndrome

  People aged under 18

  People aged 18 and over

  Total

  1991–92

  10

  1,261

  1,271

  1992–93

  5

  1,316

  1,321

  1993–94

  3

  1,191

  1,194

  1994–95

  6

  1,252

  1,258

  1995–961

  4

  746

  750

  1 Data for 1995–96 are not comparable to earlier years as records are not yet available for all hospitals and the diagnosis code used was different from earlier years.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding difficulties in appointing general practitioners in Blaenau Gwent. [4265]

  Number of teachers retiring on infirmity grounds 1985–86 to 1994–951

  Local education authority2

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  7

  17

  14

  18

  28

  33

  23

  38

  66

  72

  Dyfed

  20

  32

  26

  33

  48

  46

  45

  65

  61

  67

  Gwent

  16

  25

  22

  26

  47

  41

  51

  53

  52

  64

  Gwynedd

  20

  14

  15

  26

  38

  35

  34

  46

  53

  67

  Mid Glamorgan

  33

  48

  48

  64

  71

  86

  77

  118

  117

  96

  Powys

  11

  5

  2

  14

  14

  10

  14

  21

  21

  27

  South Glamorgan

  29

  25

  19

  27

  47

  38

  50

  37

  52

  60

  West Glamorgan

  14

  25

  20

  33

  35

  61

  66

  59

  62

  61

  Wales

  150

  191

  166

  241

  328

  350

  350

  437

  484

  514

  Notes:

  1 Includes grant-maintained and independent school staff who are in the teachers' superannuation scheme and further education or higher education teachers who are in the TSS. Excludes those returning to non pensionable occasional service.

  2 Last known LEA in which the teacher served.

  Source:

  DfEE, Database of Teacher Records.

  Fish-eating Birds (Killing)
  Mr. Ron Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences he has issued during the last 12 months for the taking of piscivorous birds; how many birds of what species have been taken under each such licence; and on what evidence such licences have been issued. [4744]

  Mr. Hague
  During the 12-month period 1 October 1995 to 30 September 1996, 13 licences permitting the limited shooting of piscivorous birds were issued.

  Under these licences, a total of eight cormorants and 13 goosanders were taken. Licences for the shooting of piscivorous birds, as a means of reinforcing other scaring methods, are granted taking account of information supplied by the applicant and on advice provided by ADAS following site visits and consultations with other interested bodies.

  The number of birds shot against five of the licences is listed in the following table:

  Birds

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Number

  Goosanders

  1

  6

  3

  0

  3

  Cormorants

  0

  3

  1

  1

  3

  No birds were shot under the remaining eight licences.
  560
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has received two such representations during the last two years.

  Teachers (Sickness)
  Mr. Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of schoolteachers in Wales(a) retiring and (b) obliged to take extended leave as a result of (i) sickness and (ii) nervous strain in Wales between 1985 and 1995. [3681]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on extended leave taken by teachers is not held centrally. Information on the number of teachers retiring on infirmity grounds is shown in the following table:

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made to date on the implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the Cardiff bay barrage; and what recent relevant communications he has had with the European Commission. [4745]

  Mr. Hague
  The establishment of the bird reserve compensation measures in an operational matter for the corporation, assisted by the Land Authority for Wales.

  My officials have recently reported the following progress to the European Commission:
  301 hectares (743 acres), that is over 75 per cent. of the land required for the reserve has already been secured by agreement and discussions are continuing on the remainder;
  a planning application is being considered by the local planning authority;
  the corporation has tendered the works contract for development of the reserve and its objective is to establish the reserve before the start of the impoundment of water within Cardiff bay in 1998.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments

  561
  arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5073]

  Mr. Hague
  The Department maintains a full record of information about private finance initiative projects it has approved. Information about long-term revenue commitments resulting from PFI projects will be published in the Welsh Office's departmental report and in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", published by HM Treasury.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 18 and 19 November; and if he will make a statement. [5466]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 18 November, accompanied by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office. The Council formally adopted the legislative text giving effect to changes in the EU beef regime agreed in principle at the Council in October. Germany maintained its negative vote.

  The Council had a first discussion of proposals for a system identification and registration of bovine animals, together with a linked proposal on the labelling of beef and beef products. I urged the Council to proceed quickly with a technical examination of the proposal on identification and registration so as to reach early conclusions and so facilitate the work on a computerised cattle traceability system already begun in the United Kingdom. I welcomed efforts to improve information about beef and beef products for consumers, but cautioned against placing heavy bureaucratic burdens on small operators. I also took the opportunity of this Council meeting to report on the progress made in the United Kingdom on BSE eradication and in particular in meeting the pre-conditions laid down in the June Florence agreement.

  The Council had general debates on proposals for amendments to EU support arrangements for durum wheat, and for a common organisation of the market in potatoes. On the latter, I indicated the UK Government's readiness to support a genuinely lightweight EU regime. The Council also drew up a declaration urging progress on establishing a European agency for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection.

  On animal welfare issues, I joined my German and Swedish colleagues in pressing the Commission to bring forward its review and proposals on battery cages for laying hens, and proposals on staging posts and vehicle standards for the protection of animals during transport. I also urged the Commission to ensure the proper implementation of Commission decision 96/239 regarding consignments of beef and beef products made from material not originating in the United Kingdom.

  The presidency and the Agriculture Commissioner reported to the Council on the conference on rural development which the presidency had hosted in Cork on
  562
  7 to 9 November. I welcomed the impetus which the Cork conference conclusions would give to further thinking on rural development policy and the evolution of the common agricultural policy, especially in view of the need to adjust that policy to take account of international trade pressures and the prospect of EU enlargement.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money his Department spent in each region of England in 1995–96 on(a) set-aside payments under the arable area scheme and (b) arable area payments. [4220]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The table gives figures for each MAFF region for claims in respect of (a) set-aside and (b) total payments under 1995 arable area payments scheme. The amounts paid will have been slightly lower because of the reductions made for various reasons. As such reductions normally have to be calculated on the basis of the total claim, which may include land in more than one region, it is not possible to give figures for the total amounts paid on a regional basis.

  Payments claimed under arable area payments scheme in 1995

  Set-aside payments £

  All arable area payments £

  Anglia

  46,798,016

  289,913,141

  East Midlands

  33,075,309

  219,326,503

  North East

  25,841,703

  167,203,491

  Northern

  6,084,999

  42,205,946

  North Mercia

  7,747,702

  51,869,608

  South Mercia

  13,348,438

  83,637,294

  South East

  30,979,065

  177,429,223

  South West

  4,115,287

  30,112,184

  Wessex

  11,717,915

  73,109,534

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of land was set aside in 1995–96 under the arable area scheme for each region of England. [4221]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The areas of land set aside on which payments were made in each MAFF region under the 1995 arable area payments scheme were as follows:

  Hectare

  Anglia

  137,258

  East Midlands

  97,010

  North East

  75,794

  Northern

  17,847

  North Mercia

  22,724

  South Mercia

  39,151

  South East

  90,861

  South West

  12,070

  Wessex

  34,369

  563
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments were made in England in 1995–96 for set-aside under the arable area scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000, (k) £200,001 and £250,000, (l) £250,001 and £300,000, (m) £300,001 and £350,000, (n) £350,001 to £400,000, (o) £400,001 and £450,000, (p) £450,001 and £500,000 and (q) over £500,000. [4223]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The table sets out the number of set-aside payments made under the 1995 arable area payments scheme in the bands requested. Some claimants will have received more than one payment.

  Set-aside payments in England banded by size of payment

  Size band

  Number of payments

  £0 and £5,000

  22,143

  £5,001 and £10,000

  6,934

  £10,001 and £15,000

  2,204

  £15,001 and £20,000

  977

  £20,001 and £25,000

  413

  £25,001 and £50,000

  37

  £50,001 and £75,000

  87

  £75,001 and £100,000

  23

  £100,001 and £150,000

  7

  £150,001 and £200,000

  2

  £200,001 and £250,000

  1

  £250,001 and over

  0

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5088]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the PFI. This is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure expected to arise from signed contracts under PFI would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Meat Processing Industry
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group Ltd. relating to problems for the meat processing industry arising from the BSE crisis. [5048]

  Mrs. Browning
  My Department holds regular meetings with various trade organisations representing the meat processing industry, including the British Meat Manufacturers Association and the UK Association of Frozen Food Producers. Representatives from the Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group Ltd. have attended these 564
  meetings, which regularly discuss problems facing the meat processing industry arising from the market disruption caused by consumer concern about BSE.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Palestine (Aid)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to the Palestinian state since the devolution of power from Israel. [4916]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Palestinian Authority assumed responsibility for Gaza and Jericho in May 1994. Bilateral development assistance given to the west bank and Gaza for 1994–95 and 1995–96 was £8.9 million. Additionally, we provide approximately one sixth of the EC's 500 mecu—£417 million-aid to the Palestinians, pledged for 1994 to 1998.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what are the time scale and objectives of the Commonwealth ministerial action group mission to Nigeria; [5039]

  (2) what plans the Commonwealth ministerial action group mission has to meet (a) Moshood Abiola,(b) Olusegun Obasanjo and (c) Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti; [5036]

  (3) which political prisoners the Commonwealth ministerial action group mission to Nigeria has requested meetings with; and what response it has received from the Nigerian Government; [5037]

  (4) if the Commonwealth ministerial action group mission's meetings with Nigerian political prisoners will be attended by Nigerian Government representatives; [5038]

  (5) what guarantees the Commonwealth ministerial action group mission to Nigeria has received regarding access to political prisoners; [5042]

  (6) what discussions the Commonwealth ministerial action group mission to Nigeria plans to have with the Nigerian Government regarding (a) the restoration of democracy and (b) human rights in Nigeria. [5040]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Commonwealth ministerial action group will visit Nigeria on 19 and 20 November. The group has been tasked to assess Nigeria's adherence to the Harare principles of good governance and make recommendations to the Commonwealth Heads of Government on its suspension from the association.

  The group has been working to encourage the Nigerian authorities to take immediate steps to improve human rights, including the release of political prisoners, and to restore accountable civilian government. It has also requested meetings with a wide range of people, including Chief Moshood Abiola.

  Middle East Aid
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to(a) Israel, (b) Egypt, (c) Jordan, (d) Lebanon and (e) Syria in each of the last five years. [4915]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  UK aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Lebanon and Syria has been provided on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis.

  Bilateral expenditure

  £ thousands

  Total ODA programme

  Total gross public expenditure

  Israel

  1991–92

  13

  13

  1992–93

  8

  8

  1993–94

  8

  8

  1994–95

  7

  7

  1995–96

  10

  13

  Egypt

  1991–92

  12,385

  13,409

  1992–93

  7,606

  8,833

  1993–94

  5,901

  7,128

  1994–95

  4,884

  6,123

  1995–96

  5,019

  6,245

  Jordan

  1991–92

  3,122

  3,122

  1992–93

  4,251

  7,307

  1993–94

  4,209

  4,209

  1994–95

  5,231

  8,902

  1995–96

  5,902

  10,877

  Lebanon

  1991–92

  182

  182

  1992–93

  245

  247

  1993–94

  264

  316

  1994–95

  162

  211

  1995–96

  219

  219

  Syria

  1991–92

  3

  3

  1992–93

  16

  16

  1993–94

  30

  30

  1994–95

  0

  49

  1995–96

  16

  36

  ODA Programme contains Financial Aid, Technical Cooperation, Aid and Trade Provision, Programme Aid, Emergency Aid, Non Project Technical Cooperation and ODA Debt Relief.

  GPEX consists ODA Programme plus CDC Investments and Other Debt relief and Drugs.

  Multilateral expenditure

  £ millions

  UK share of net oda disbursements

  Israel

  1990

  0.1

  1991

  3.2

  1992

  0.7

  1993

  0

  1994

  2.1

  Egypt

  1990

  5.1

  1991

  27.9

  1992

  7.8

  1993

  7.4

  1994

  17.5

  566

  Multilateral expenditure

  £ millions

  UK share of net oda disbursements

  Jordan

  1990

  0.9

  1991

  18.9

  1992

  4

  1993

  4.7

  1994

  5.8

  Lebanon

  1990

  3

  1991

  0.8

  1992

  1.1

  1993

  1.9

  1994

  2.1

  Syria

  1990

  1.1

  1991

  0.2

  1992

  1

  1993

  0.5

  1994

  1.6

  Source:

  British Aid Statistics 1996 Edition OECD

  Note:

  1995–96 figures are provisional until publication of British Aid Statistics.

  Multilateral aid consists UN, EC and other.

  Aid Recipients
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 10 countries receiving the largest amounts of United Kingdom aid in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [4831]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The 10 countries receiving the largest amounts of development assistance in each of the last three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  India

  102

  Bangladesh

  55

  Former Yugoslavia

  152

  Zambia

  48

  Pakistan

  44

  Zimbabwe

  41

  Uganda

  40

  Indonesia

  35

  Mozambique

  35

  China

  34

  1994–95

  India

  100

  Pakistan

  80

  Bangladesh

  56

  Zambia

  56

  Indonesia

  51

  Uganda

  47

  Former Yugoslavia

  146

  Rwanda

  45

  Malawi

  41

  Zimbabwe

  35

  1995–96

  India

  99

  Bangladesh

  48

  Former Yugoslavia

  138

  Indonesia

  38

  567

  £million

  Malawi

  33

  China

  33

  Uganda

  32

  Pakistan

  32

  Russia

  31

  Zambia

  29

  1Excluding technical co-operation to Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  At £2,154 million in 1996–97, British development assistance makes a substantial contribution to reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development. An increasing proportion of ODA's bilateral budget is concentrated on the poorest countries in Africa and south Asia who need assistance the most and can make the best use of it.

  Budget line

  Title

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  B7-6000 (was B7-5010)

  Community contributions towards schemes concerning developing countries carried out by NGOs

  135,000,000 ecu (£105,592,491)

  145,000,000 ecu (£113,414,157)

  162,500,000 ecu (£127,102,072)

  174,000,000 ecu (£136,096,989)

  B7-610 (was B7-5031)

  Separate Budget Line for training and promotion of awareness on developing issues

  2,000,000 ecu (£1,564,333)

  2,000,000 ecu (£1,564,333)

  3,000,000 ecu (£2,346,500)

  4,000,000 ecu (£3,128,666)

  B7-631 (was B7-5050)

  Aid for population policies and programmes in developing countries

  4,000,000 ecu (£3,128,666)

  5,000,000 ecu (£3,910,833)

  6,000,000 ecu (£4,692,999)

  7,000,000 ecu (£5,475,166)

  B7-6211 (was B7-5046)

  Health programme and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries

  10,000,000 ecu (£7,821,666)

  12,500,000 ecu (£9,777,082)

  12,500,000 ecu (£9,777,082)

  15,000,000 ecu (£11,732,499)

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding was allocated for how many and for which projects for(a) B7-5010, co-financing of development projects carried out by non-governmental organisations and public awareness campaigns, (b) B7-5050, aid for population policies and programmes in developing countries and (c) B7-5046, the fight against AIDS in developing countries European Union budget lines in each year since 1993; and which NGOs and agencies are responsible for implementing these projects. [4897]

  Dr. Fox
  I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly.

TRANSPORT

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's time and resources are spent dealing with administrative and policy matters connected with British membership of the European Union. [4961]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has a European unit, devoted very largely to work connected to the European Union, which has a budget of just over £500,000. Beyond that, European Union matters are fully integrated into other policy and administration matters, and the sums of time and money spent in dealing with them cannot be disaggregated.

  European Union Aid Budget
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the European Union budget commitment appropriation for(a) B7-5010, co-financing of development projects carried out by non-governmental organisations and public awarenesss campaigns, (b) B7-5050, aid for population policies and programmes in developing countries and (c) B7-5046, the fight against AIDS in developing countries in each year since 1993. [4896]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The European Union budget commitment appropriations for each of the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively were as follows (sterling equivalents, at today's exchange rate of £1 = 1.2785 ecu, shown in brackets):

  Walking
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the national travel survey excludes consideration of distances covered on foot during employment. [4478]

  Mr. Bowis
  The primary purpose of the national travel survey is to estimate the demand for personal travel. This comprises travel for private purposes or for work or education, provided that the main reason for the journey is for the traveller himself or herself to reach the destination.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the information in the latest issue of the national travel survey in respect of walking. [4477]

  Mr. Bowis
  The 1993 to 1995 report on the national travel survey contained a number of tables showing the contribution of walking to figures for personal travel. The main section shows that the average number of journeys walked per person and the average distance walked have fallen over recent years and we have therefore set up a steering group to look at the causes of this and at ways that have been shown to be effective in encouraging walking. I have chaired the first two meetings of this group.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the national walking strategy. [4476]
  569
  Mr. Bowis
  I have formed and chaired the first two meetings of a steering group whose membership comes from a range of interested parties. The group is drafting a discussion document which will invite comments from a wider constituency to help establish what measures may be commended as good practice to encourage walking as a mode of transport, as a component in journeys with public transport and as an alternative to the car for short journeys.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5075]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the PFI. This information is now being collected. As indicated in the Government's response, aggregate projections of the level of expenditure expected to arise from signed PFI contracts, including those in the transport sector, will be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Speeding
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of his recent television campaign on speeding on maximum and minimum speeds; and what other measures he plans to use to monitor the campaign's effect. [4479]

  Mr. Bowis
  The objective of the kill your speed campaign is to make driving too fast for the conditions—such as 40mph in a 30mph zone—as socially unacceptable as drink driving. That requires a long-term campaign to change entrenched social attitudes before behaviour can be affected.

  Independent research shows a high awareness of the recent advertising with 65 per cent. of all drivers recalling the publicity. It also shows that just six months after the launch there has been a positive shift—from 42 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the proportion of drivers who felt that they could personally drive more slowly to avoid accidents. There has also been a positive shift in the perceived safe speed on residential roads.

  The Department will continue to monitor the campaign with both quantitative research and consumer focus groups to evolve the message in the most effective way. We also monitor vehicle speed in residential and urban areas.

  North-eastern and North-western Traffic Areas (Merger)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the transfer of work of the north-western traffic area office to the north-eastern traffic area office indicating which areas of operation will not be transferred. [5172]
  570
  Mr. Bowis
  Detailed arrangements for handling the transfer of work from the north-western traffic area office in Manchester, which is closing next year, have not yet been finalised.

  Disabled People (Access to Public Transport)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 28 October,Official Report, column 43, when he expects to publish regulations and guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to access to public transport for disabled people. [5128]

  Mr. Bowis
  Discussions are being held with the transport industries and with the disabled persons transport advisory committee on the technical specifications for vehicle accessibility that will form the basis of the regulations.

  We plan to publish our proposals for the taxi accessibility regulations early in the new year. Proposals for public service vehicles and for rail vehicles will follow shortly afterwards. There will be informal consultation with groups representing disabled people, industry and other interested parties at that time. This will cover both the content of the specifications and the timetable for implementation.

  Once responses to this initial consultation have been taken into account, there will be a further formal period of consultation on the draft regulations.

  Copies of all consultation documents will be placed in the Library as soon as they are published.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 4, if he will list for each rail franchise the administered profit included within the support paid to British Rail prior to franchising. [4145]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 14 November 1996]: The amounts of administered profit are provided in the table.

  £ million

  Support paid to BR Prior to franchising

  Including administered Profit1

  Gatwick Express

  NIL

  4.33

  South Eastern Trains

  138.92

  18.34

  LTS

  34.50

  3.85

  Midland Main Line

  16.76

  6.68

  Great Western

  60.83

  15.14

  Thames

  43.80

  5.14

  Cardiff Railway

  22.20

  0.70

  South Wales and West

  84.80

  4.79

  InterCity East Coast

  74.74

  19.43

  Chiltern

  18.56

  2.33

  Network SouthCentral

  101.99

  13.41

  South West Trains

  85.43

  19.49

  Island Line

  2.56

  0.14

  Total

  685.09

  113.77

  Note:

  1figures are for 1996–97 except for SWT and GW, where the figures are for 1995–96.
  571
  A total of £88 million operating profit was generated by the 13 franchised from operating companies whilst they were in BR ownership in 1995–96. This was some £16 million below the budgeted level of administered profits.

TREASURY

  Retirement Pensioners
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons receiving the basic retirement pension(a) pay income tax over the standard rate, (b) pay income tax at the standard rate and (c) pay no income tax; and in each case what is the percentage of the total. [3045]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information for 1996–97 is given in the following table and relates to individuals above state retirement age.

  Number in millions

  Percentage of total

  Marginal tax rate

  Individuals aged 65 or over

  Women aged 60 to 64

  Individuals aged 65 or over

  Women aged 60 to 64

  Higher rate

  0.1

  1—

  1

  1

  Basic rate

  1.2

  0.2

  13

  18

  Lower rate

  1.7

  0.4

  19

  25

  No tax liability

  6.3

  0.8

  67

  56

  Total

  9.3

  1.4

  100

  100

  1Fewer than 50,000.

  The estimates are based on information projected from 1994–95 survey of personal incomes and population estimates from the Government Actuary's Department; they are therefore provisional.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people currently paying income tax are estimated to pay more, and how many are estimated to pay less, than their national insurance contributions, including employers' contributions on their behalf. [3053]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates for 1996–97 are as follows:

  Individuals paying income tax who:

  Number in millions

  Pay more tax than national insurance contributions1

  10.7

  Pay less tax than national insurance contributions1

  10.1

  Pay tax but do not pay national insurance contributions1

  4.8

  Total

  25.6

  1Includes both employee contributions and the corresponding employers' contributions. The estimates are based on information projected from the 1994–95 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by local government in(a) 1979 and (b) 1990. [3104]
  572
  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the financial year 1979–80, the total amount spent by local government, by national accounts definitions, was £26 billion. In the financial year 1990–91 the total amount spent by local government, by national accounts definitions, was £69 billion.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much funding for local government was provided by central Government for the current year; and what are the equivalent figures for the last year for which figures are available. [3105]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  For the financial year 1996–97, planned total central Government grants to local authorities in the United Kingdom totalled £62,060 million. For the financial year 1995–96 total central Government grants to local authorities in the Untied Kingdom were estimated at £61,979 million.

  Taxation (Self-assessment)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tests the Inland Revenue has made of its computer systems relating to the self-assessment of taxation; and if the results were successful. [3257]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]: EDS, the Inland Revenue's strategic partner, has worked with the Inland Revenue jointly to plan full testing of the computer system to support self-assessment. These tests included component, system, framework, integration and inter-system testing. They were supported by a full rehearsal of the system in local Inland Revenue offices during September. The system has been made available progressively from 4 November, since when it has been successfully available to local offices each day.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extra(a) letters and (b) telephone calls the Inland Revenue is likely to receive as a result of the introduction of self-assessment. [3261]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]: The first self-assessment tax returns will be issued in April 1997. In the period to 31 March 1998 the Inland Revenue has planned to cope with up to 1.1 million letters and up to 11 million telephone calls which it expects to receive in relation to self-assessment.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of new computer systems at the Inland Revenue to administer the self-assessment of taxation. [3258]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]: The computer system for self-assessment is being developed and implemented by EDS, the Inland Revenue's information technology partner. So far, the Inland Revenue has paid approximately £200 million for this service.

  European Union Membership (Cost)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net cost to the United Kingdom of membership of the European Union. [4093]
  573
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Between joining the European Community in 1973 and the end of financial year 1995–96, the total United Kingdom public sector net contribution to the European Community Budget was £26.5 billion.

  Spreadable Butter
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was informed by the EC that New Zealand spreadable butter was not classified as butter. [4368]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The head of the Agriculture Directorate General to the European Commission ruled in letter dated 27 June 1996 addressed to the Director of the European Court of Auditors that New Zealand spreadable butter did not meet the qualifying criteria for admission into the European Community at the reduced rate of customs duty. This correspondence was forwarded to HM Customs and Excise on 3 July 1996.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the implementation of the stability pact which is proposed for stage III of EMU will require an amendment to the treaty of European union. [4394]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The proposed stability pact aims to spell out practical procedures for implementation of the excessive deficits procedure in article 104c of the Maastricht treaty. One element of the pact is a draft regulation based on article 104c(14) second subparagraph. Otherwise, no amendment or change to the provisions of the treaty is envisaged or required for the implementation of the pact.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requirements in respect of a gross domestic product ceiling on member states' general Government debt are proposed for inclusion in the stability pact for EMU. [4393]

  Mr. Clarke
  The Commission's proposals for a stability pact were submitted to Parliament on 22 October 1996 and I submitted an explanatory memorandum on 31 October. The proposed stability pact aims to reinforce the operation of the excessive deficits procedure in article 104c of the Maastricht treaty. It does not aim to change the reference value for debt which is specified in protocol No.5 of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals in respect of budget disciplines have been made for(a) countries in monetary union and (b) countries outside the monetary union by (i) the European Commission and (ii) the German Government. [4367]

  Mr. Clarke
  The Commission's proposals for a stability pact were published on 16 October 1996 and submitted to Parliament on 22 October. I submitted an explanatory memorandum on 31 October. The idea of a stability pact has been under discussion since the German Government first proposed clarifying existing provisions in article 104c of the Maastricht treaty in November 1995. Proposals in the stability pact on fiscal discipline would affect only member states which participate in the single currency.

  Energy-saving Materials (VAT)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual revenue cost to the Exchequer of reducing the rate of value added tax from 17.5 per cent. to 8 per cent. on energy-saving materials, manufactured for the purpose of(a) cavity wall insulation, (b) loft insulation, (c) underfloor insulation, (d) insulating hot water tanks, (e) insulating pipes and other plumbing fittings, (f) draught proofing, (g) controlling domestic heating systems, (h) external and internal wall cladding and (i) providing low emissivity glazing; and if he will make a statement. [4270]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available. The cost of reducing VAT on these products has been estimated by the Association for the Conservation of Energy a trade lobby group, at £10 million in a full year.

  Personal Tax Allowance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the cost in excess of indexation of raising the personal tax allowance to £4,000 per annum and (b) the number of employees who would be taken out of the PAYE system, in addition to those who would be exempted by indexation. [4468]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The full year cost in 1997–98, after allowing for statutory indexation, of increasing the non-age personal allowance to £4,000 and increasing the age allowances by an equivalent amount would be about £980 million. This would take about 350,000 people out of income tax including employees, self-employed people and pensioners, compared with statutory indexation.

  VAT Overpayments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of extending the allowable period for the reclaim of overpaid value added tax to(a) four years, (b) five years and (c) six years; and if he will make a statement. [4742]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: Because, by its nature, overpaid value added tax is an unknown quantity until it is discovered and reclaimed, it is not possible to make reliable estimates.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry on the Government's plans to restrict the time period for reclaiming overpaid value added tax to three years while retaining the ability of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to claim VAT underpaid over a six-year time period; what assessment he has made of the effects of such a policy on small and medium businesses; and if he will make a statement. [4741]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: The CBI has made representations in writing and in the forum of the joint VAT consultative committee. Representatives of Customs and Excise and the Treasury also attended a special meeting organised by the CBI at which businesses were able to discuss their concerns about the proposed time limit on recovery of overpaid tax. I have taken careful note of the points raised and the impact of the proposal on all sectors of business.
  575
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings there have been within the last two months between the head of the international and supply division of the VAT policy directorate of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the European Commission, represented by the head of the VAT unit of DGXXI; if he will publish the minutes of these meetings; what advice was given by the Commission's representative to the United Kingdom Government on the subject of the time limits applying to the reclaiming of VAT for(a) taxpayers and (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [4743]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: The head of the international and supply division of the VAT policy directorate of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the head of the VAT unit of DGXXI have met on several occasions in the last two months, most recently on 4 and 5 November. No formal minutes have been produced and the content of such bilateral discussions, which covered a range of issues, is regarded as confidential.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) his agencies. [5074]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Distribution Losses
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the level of losses of electricity in the distribution system; and what variance there is between the regional companies. [4267]

  Mr. Page
  The level of losses for the regional electricity companies as a whole was 6.6 per cent. in 1995–96. There is regional variation which is caused by various factors including the physical aspects of each company's area. Individual companies' figures are commercially confidential, but range from just under 5 per cent. to nearly 9 per cent.

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make arrangements to publish the report of Professor Harrington relating to the working time directive. [4764]
  576
  Mr. Lang
  As indicated in the reply by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Employment to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on 11 May 1994,Official Report, column 168, the report could be published only after the case in the European Court of Justice had been concluded. Accordingly, I have now arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Negligence
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to prevent companies charged with negligence resulting in a fatality from going into liquidation in order to avoid standing trial. [4794]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Companies may be subject to criminal proceedings notwithstanding the fact that they have gone into liquidation. In cases of winding up by the court, leave of the court may be required to bring such proceedings, whilst in cases of voluntary winding up, although leave is not required the court has the power to restrain proceedings on the application of the liquidate. Accordingly, I have no plans to change the law in this area.

  Timeshare (Scotland)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to apply the Misrepresentation Act 1967 to Scotland in respect of timeshares; and if he will make a statement. [5041]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to do so.

  Oil Companies (Meetings)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions since 1979 Ministers met representatives of Century Oil Company Ltd., and BHP Petroleum Ltd. in their official capacity; what issues were raised at such meetings; and which Ministers attended. [4295]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Energy have met representatives of Century Oil Company Ltd. or BHP Petroleum Ltd. in their present ministerial capacities. However, my right hon. and noble Friend has agreed to meet BHP Petroleum Ltd. on 29 November 1996.

  I attended a reception on 9 May 1996 at the House of Commons to which I was invited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Sir W. Roberts) in conjunction with BHP Petroleum Ltd. This was a social engagement.

  I understand that my predecessors met representatives of BHP Petroleum Ltd. on occasion to discuss matters of topical interest.

  Patents (Human DNA Sequences)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of patents for human DNA sequences issued by the European Patent Office indicating(a) the country of origin and (b) if the organisation applying for the patent was from the private or public sector. [4973]
  577
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: The way patent information is recorded does not permit direct retrieval of the information requested. However, research indicates that the patents granted for human DNA sequences are made up as follows:

  (a) The three main countries of origin are, in descending order, Japan, USA and Germany, with South Africa, Spain, UK, Israel and Australia following, again in descending order.

  (b) Over 70 per cent. come from the private sector.

  To complete a full analysis to answer the question would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many patents for human DNA sequences have been issued by(a) the British Patent Office and (b) the European Patent Office. [4972]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: The way information on granted patents is recorded does not permit retrieval of the information requested but, following research, I believe that the number of patents issued for human DNA sequences by the British Patent Office is between 10 and 20, while the number issued by the European Patent Office is between 70 and 130. A fuller analysis could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford North, of 7 November,Official Report, column 704, what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government or is planned to ensure the exclusion of imports of woven wool fabrics from stage two of the European Union's phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement; if the matter is subject to qualified majority voting; when final decisions will be taken; and if he will make a further statement. [5043]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: A qualified majority of EU member states, including the United Kingdom, support a compromise proposal from the Irish presidency for stage 2 of the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement, which would exclude woven wool fabrics from liberalisation.

  Radio Communications Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Radio Communications Agency. [4306]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the previous answers that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave on 17 June 1996,Official Report, columns 320–21 and on 24 July 1996, Official Report, column 481. The White Paper "Spectrum Management into the 21st Century" and the agency revised framework document, both available in the Libraries of both Houses, clearly set out the position of the agency in the future. The situation has not changed since then and I am pleased to say that there has been a substantial and positive response to the White Paper.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown by sector of(a) imports
  578
  and (b) exports with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since the lifting of sanctions in November 1995. [4775]

  Mr. Nelson
  The data are published monthly by HM Customs and Excise in Business Monitor MM20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community (Extra-EC Trade)".

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on proposals to extend the terms of the European Union agricultural generalised system of preference scheme to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [4772]

  Mr. Nelson
  The European Commission is committed, under the terms of the new generalised system of preferences regulation for agricultural products, to bring forward a proposal to examine the application of the agricultural GSP arrangements that will apply from 1 January 1997 to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. No proposal has yet been received from the European Commission.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the planning of a promotional event to encourage trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [4774]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department has taken a number of initiatives to promote trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Theses include organising a successful major trade promotion event in London in June which coincided with the visit of the Federal Minister of Trade. Over 160 business representatives were present; my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in this Department, was the UK keynote speaker. Last month, in association with the London chamber of commerce and industry, my Department mounted trade promotion events to coincide with the visits to the UK of the British ambassador to Belgrade and a trade delegation from Montenegro led by the Montenegrin Prime Minister. Both events were well attended. The ambassador also spoke at a series of events outside London organised by my Department to strengthen UK-Federal Republic of Yugoslavia trade and commercial links. Other events are planned for the future to build on the momentum already generated; these include a trade mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia early in 1997.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans there are for the European Union to conclude a trade agreement with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if the trade conditions of the 1982 trade and co-operation agreement between the European Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be extended to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [4773]

  Mr. Nelson
  EU Foreign Ministers have agreed that trade and co-operation agreements can be concluded in due course with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and certain other countries in south-eastern Europe, subject to the fulfilment of political and economic conditions. The Commission is currently undertaking exploratory contacts with the countries concerned, including FRY.
  579
  The Commission has recently proposed to the Council that the trade preferences contained in the 1982 agreement, which have been operating since February 1992 following suspension in November 1991, should now be extended to cover FRY. This is welcomed by the Government.

  Gas Cylinder Sales (Safety)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to take to ensure that companies which sell gas cylinder bottles are held responsible for their safe return. [4271]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: There are voluntary arrangements, promoted by gas suppliers and by the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association and local authorities, to ensure the return of used liquid petroleum gas cylinders. I have no plans to introduce mandatory requirements.

SCOTLAND

  Minimum Sentences
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effects of his proposals to introduce minimum sentences in Scotland with particular reference to the safety of the public. [3462]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposals in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill for automatic life sentences for repeat sexual or violent offenders and for a minimum sentence of seven years for a third conviction for trafficking in class A drugs demonstrate our determination to provide the public with the protection they deserve.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in the level of tourism in Scotland since(a) 1979 and (b) 1993. [3471]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Comparative figures are not available but, since 1984, total visitor expenditure has increased by 51 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of local authority spending per head in Scotland relative to the level in English local authorities. [3472]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Planned local authority spending per head of population in the current year is 32 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance. [3481]

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the forthcoming revenue support grant settlement. [3496]
  580
  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend and I met the convention on 8 November and a further meeting is planned for 17 January.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors he takes into account when calculating housing capital allocations to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [3498]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The distribution of available resources for council housing investment reflect an assessment of the relative housing need in each local authority area based on information which authorities provide on such factors as stock condition and homelessness. The allocations take account of the extent to which councils propose to address the national priority issues of condensation and dampness, below tolerable standard housing, homelessness and community care in their planned capital programmes, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness with which they utilise resources and work with Scottish Homes and other housing providers in meeting local needs. Account is also taken of the capacity of each authority to generate capital receipts, part of which can be used to support housing investment.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mrs Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards lifting the ban on the export of beef cattle from Scotland. [3473]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Good progress is being made towards fulfilling the Florence pre-conditions, including elimination of the backlog under the over-30-months scheme in Scotland where some 140,000 animals have been slaughtered.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to make prisoners liable to serve the full terms of their sentences in Scotland. [3474]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill will ensure that sentences mean what they say. In future, prisoners will serve the full sentence of imprisonment pronounced by the court, subject to a small measure of early release—not exceeding 12 days every two months—depending on good behaviour in custody.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on proposed amalgamations of hospital trusts in Scotland. [3475]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no current plans to alter the boundaries or re-configure any of the existing NHS trusts in Scotland.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what private finance initiative schemes he has approved since their inception. [3476]
  581
  Mr. Kynoch
  Private finance initiative schemes with an initial capital value of £70.4 million have been approved by my right hon. Friend or have been taken forward by health service bodies under delegated authority. These projects include the Skye bridge, clinical waste disposal facilities for Lothian, Forth and Northern health boards, the Law hospital health information system and the Ferryfield elderly care facility in Edinburgh. The balance is made up of smaller contracts for care beds, medical analysis equipment and clinical waste disposal.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the health boards to discuss finance. [3477]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I meet chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss matters of current interest including finance.

  Frail Elderly People
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of frail elderly people in Scotland who will require NHS hospital beds in the year 2000. [3478]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The level of NHS bed provision and the organisation of community health and social services for the frail elderly are determined by continuous joint assessment of local needs involving health boards and local authorities.

  The aim is to secure the most effective package of services both in hospital and in the community which meets current and future needs.

  Crimes
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crimes were committed in(a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [3479]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of crimes committed is not available. The number of crimes recorded by the police in Scotland was 346,680 in 1979 and 502,802 in 1995. The results of the Scottish crime survey, a household survey of people's experience of crime, indicate that, between 1981 and 1992 actual crimes increased by only 4 per cent. compared with a 52 per cent. increase in comparable recorded crime over the same period.

  Secondary Schools (Expenditure)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figure was in 1978–79, at constant prices. [3480]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Current expenditure per secondary pupil in 1994–95 was £2,874. That is 37 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979.

  Dangerous Criminals
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to produce measures to protect the public from dangerous criminals. [3482]
  582
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are determined to protect the public from dangerous criminals. We have produced several new measures to achieve this in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, the most important of which is the automatic life sentence which will apply on conviction for a second serious sexual or violent offence.

  Convicted Offenders (Early Release)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals in respect of the automatic early release of convicted offenders. [3483]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We will abolish automatic early release in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. In future, early release of prisoners will be dependent on their behaviour in custody and will he limited to a maximum of 12 days every two months.

  Devolution
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the report prepared by the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on the subject of devolution in Scotland. [3484]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I welcome the detailed consideration given by the CBI to this important debate. It is clear that the business community recognises the damage that would be done to the Scottish economy by tampering with the present constitutional arrangements.

  Public Spending
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on public spending by central Government per capita in Scotland. [3485]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).

  River Clyde (Pollution)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost of cleaning up pollution in the River Clyde in the last six months. [3486]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No major pollution incidents affecting the River Clyde have been reported to the Scottish Office in the last six months.

  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency does not hold comprehensive data on the cost of general clean-up of lower level pollution in specific rivers or catchments.

  Cattle Cull
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the BSE cull; and if he will make a statement. [3487]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The selective cull is on hold while the new scientific evidence is considered, but of course many animals will have been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme which would have been identified under the selective cull.

  Salmon Farming
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives from the Scottish Salmon Growers' Association to discuss the salmon farming industry in Scotland. [3488]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I met a wide range of industry representatives at this year's Scottish fish farming conference on 2 October and have maintained regular contact with senior representatives of the industry since then.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investment from abroad has been attracted to Scotland over the last 12 months. [3489]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Our continuing success in attracting inward investment to Scotland includes announcements during the past 12 months by DuPont, Seiko, Simple Technology, Nikon, Shin Ho Tech, Appryl, Quintiles, Lite-On Technology Corporation, Allied Precision Company, Bermo, Rohr Incorporated, Smart Incorporated and Hyundai among many others.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about inward investment in Scotland. [3494]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Inward investment in Scotland has been running at record levels over the past two years and this success is continuing. Firms like Hyundai, Chunghwa, Lite-On, Quintiles and Rohr recognise that locating in Scotland means locating in one of Europe's most competitive business locations.

  Self-financing Regulatory Organisations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the powers of self-financing regulatory organisations in Scotland. [3490]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any bodies in Scotland for which he has responsibility which fit the description of self-financing regulatory organisations.

  Knives (Assaults)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assaults with knives there have been in Scotland in each of the last five years. [3491]
  584
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer that I gave him on 15 November 1996,Official Report, column 380.

  New Community Hospital, Hawick
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects contracts to be awarded for construction on the proposed new community hospital for Hawick; and if he will make a statement. [3492]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The award of the contract for construction of the proposed new community hospital at Hawick is a matter for Borders Community Health Services NHS trust.

  Maternity Care (Lanarkshire)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning maternity care in Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement. [3493]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have received written representations from the Royal College of Midwives and three others.

  Lanarkshire health board's on-going public consultation on its proposals for the reprovision of maternity and related services will continue until 9 December 1996. No final decisions have yet been taken.

  NHS Chairmen and Chief Executives
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the(a) cost and (b) purpose of the recent two-day meeting between NHS chairmen and chief executives. [3495]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am not aware of such a meeting having been held.

  Homelessness
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on levels of homelessness in Scotland. [3497]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Most recent representations on homelessness have been in connection with the consultation on a draft code of guidance on homelessness, to which just over 140 organisations and individuals responded.

SCOTLAND

  Alcohol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) people and (b) children under the age of 18 years have been diagnosed as alcoholics in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4412]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information required is not available centrally. However, information on hospitalisation for those patients aged under 18 and those 18 and over who have been discharged with an alcohol dependence syndrome1 during the last five years is set out in the following table:

  Year

  18

  18+

  Total

  1991

  31

  3,535

  3,566

  1992

  20

  4,167

  4,187

  1993

  13

  4,609

  4,622

  1994

  14

  5,169

  5,183

  1995

  16

  5,966

  5,982

  1 "Hospitalisations" refer to in-patient and day case discharges from non-obstetric/non-psychiatric NHS hospitals in Scotland. Out-patient attendances, accident and emergency attendances and general practitioner consultations are excluded from the table. Diagnoses are coded to the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision, ICD.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) people and (b) children under the age of 18 have been prosecuted for alcohol-related crime in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4407]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of prosecutions for alcohol-related crime. The available information is given in the table. Children under the age of 16 would usually be dealt with by the children's hearing system rather than the courts for such offences.

  Number of persons aged under 18 proceeded against where the main offence related to the purchase, consumption or possession of alcohol

  Year

  Number of persons aged under 18

  1990

  70

  1991

  122

  1992

  28

  1993

  27

  1994

  23

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions for selling(a) alcohol and (b) alco-pops to under-age children have taken place in Scotland in each of the last five years; what proportion of prosecutions have involved sales from (i) public houses, (ii) off licences, (iii) supermarkets and (iv) other outlets; and if he will make a statement. [4403]
  586
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is given in the table.

  Persons proceeded against where the main offence was sale of alcohol to persons under 18 years old

  Year

  Number

  1990

  134

  1991

  151

  1992

  80

  1993

  77

  1994

  81

  M77 Extension
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the extension of the M77 on the economies of(a) Renfrewshire and (b) Ayrshire. [4262]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office carried out the standard cost-benefit analysis of the M77 extension, which revealed that the proposal offered good value for money. In addition, Renfrewshire Enterprise and Enterprise Ayrshire have each prepared economic assessments of aspects of the project. The results of these assessments indicate that the development of the route offers real economic opportunities for neighbouring communities. The local enterprise companies will be looking to exploit those opportunities when the Drumbreck-Malletsheugh section of the M77 opens shortly.

  Tayside Community Business
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the failure rate of firms funded with public money by Tayside Community Business; and if he will make a statement. [4281]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has received two representations about Tayside Community Business. The issues raised are under considerations at present and replies will be sent as soon as possible.

  Electoral Divisions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the(a) local authority and (b) new parliamentary constituency for each local authority electoral division. [4751]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.
  587

  Local authority areas showing component electoral wards and parliamentary constituencies

  Local authority

  Component electoral wards

  Parliamentary constituency

  Aberdeen City

  1-12, 19-20, 23-24

  Aberdeen, North

  13-18, 21-22, 25-28, 31-34

  Aberdeen, Central

  29-30, 35-50

  Aberdeen, South

  Aberdeenshire

  1-4, 7-18, 21-24, 35-47

  Banff and Buchan West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  5-6, 19-20, 25-34

  Gordon (part)

  Angus

  1-10, 15-18, 23-26

  Angus (part)

  11-14, 19-22

  North Tayside (part)

  Argyll and Bute

  1-27

  Argyll and Bute

  28-33

  Dumbarton (part)

  Clackmannanshire

  1-12

  Ochil (part)

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1-32

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  33-70

  Dumfries

  Dundee City

  1-18, 13(pt), 14-15, 16(pt), 17(pt), 18, 19(pt) 20(pt), 21-22

  Dundee, West

  9-12, 23-26, 27(pt), 28, 29(pt), 30-34, 35(pt), 36(pt)

  Dundee, East

  13(pt), 16(pt), 17(pt), 19(pt), 20(pt), 27(pt), 29(pt), 35(pt), 36(pt)

  Angus (part)

  East Ayrshire

  1-20

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  21-30

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (part)

  East Dunbartonshire

  1-5

  Clydebank and Milngavie (part)

  6-25

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  26

  Coatbridge and Chryston (part)

  East Lothian

  1-3

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (part)

  4-18

  East Lothian

  East Renfrewshire

  1–20

  Eastwood

  Edinburgh, City of

  1-2, 25-26, 41-44, 51-52

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  3-8, 13-14, 23-24

  Edinburgh, West

  9-12, 17-22

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  15-16, 27-34

  Edinburgh, Central

  35-40, 57-58

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (part)

  45-50, 53-56

  Edinburgh, South

  Falkirk

  1-10, 21-24, 27-30

  Falkirk, West

  11-30, 25-26, 31-36

  Falkirk, East

  Fife

  1-10, 13-20

  Dumfermline, West

  11-12, 21-34, 73-74

  Dunfermline, East

  35-52

  Kirkcaldy

  53-72

  Central Fife

  75-92

  North-East Fife

  588

  Local authority areas showing component electoral wards and parliamentary constituencies

  Local authority area

  Component electoral wards

  Parliamentary constituency

  Glasgow, City of

  1-9

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  10-15, 19-21

  Glasgow, Kelvin

  16-18, 22-27

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  28-36

  Glasgow, Springburn

  37-39, 43-45, 73-75

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  40-42, 46-51

  Glasgow, Baillieston

  52-57, 70-72

  Glasgow, Govan

  58-66

  Glasgow, Pollok

  67-69, 76-81

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  82-33

  Glasgow, Rutherglen (part)

  Highland

  1-15, 22-24

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  16-21, 25-34, 37-42, 44, 49

  Ross, Skye and Inverness, West

  35-36, 43, 45-48, 50-72

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber

  Inverclyde

  1-5

  West Renfrewshire (part)

  6-20

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  Midlothian

  1-3

  Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (part)

  4-15

  Midlothian

  Moray

  1-14, 17-18

  Moray

  15-16

  Gordon (part)

  North Ayrshire

  1-15

  Cunninghame, South

  16-30

  Cunninghame, North

  North Lanarkshire

  1-15

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  16-20, 41-50

  Airdrie and Shotts

  21-30

  Hamilton, North and Bellshill (part)

  31-40, 66-69

  Coatbridge and Chryston (part)

  51-65

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  Orkney Islands

  1-28

  Orkney and Shetland (part)

  Perth and Kinross

  1-18

  Perth

  19-29

  North Tayside (part)

  30-31

  Ochil (part)

  32

  Angus (part)

  Renfrewshire

  1-5, 16-20, 26-30

  Paisley, North

  6-15, 21-25

  Paisley, South

  31-40

  West Renfrewshire (part)

  Scottish Borders

  1-10, 15-16, 29-46

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  11-14, 17-28, 47-58

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (part)

  Shetland Islands

  1-26

  Orkney and Shetland (part)

  South Ayrshire

  1-10, 16-20

  Ayr

  11-15, 21-25

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (part)

  589

  Local authority areas showing component electoral wards and parliamentary constituencies

  Local authority area

  Component electoral wards

  Parliamentary constituency

  South Lanarkshire

  1-16, 57-61

  Clydesdale

  17-36

  East Kilbride

  37-41, 47-56

  Hamilton, South

  42-46

  Hamilton, North and Bellshill (part)

  62-74

  Glasgow, Rutherglen (part)

  Stirling

  1-12, 15-16, 19-22

  Stirling

  13-14, 17-18

  Ochil (part)

  West Dunbartonshire

  1-11

  Clydebank and Milngavie (part)

  12-22

  Dumbarton (part)

  West Lothian

  1-12

  Linlithgow

  13-27

  Livingston

  Western Isles

  1-30

  Western Isles

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4530]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office has a responsibility for most aspects of the environment in Scotland, which figures as an important consideration in a wide range of Scottish policies and programmes. In these areas, a variety of procedures and processes is used to ensure that decisions are reached giving full weight to the commitments made in the White Papers "Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy", Cm 2246, 1994, and the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance", Cm 1200, 1990. It is a fundamental objective of the Government to secure a prosperous economy for Scotland, building on and having regard for its considerable natural resources and heritage.

  Within its own estate, the Scottish Office has initiated an environmental auditing procedure in accordance with ISO 14001 accreditation criteria at its largest building, Victoria Quay, in Edinburgh.

  Environmental management procedures piloted at Victoria Quay have refined existing work practices. Further development of waste management and energy efficiency policies will, collectively, result in an overall improvement in environmental performance across the estate, providing additional economic and social benefits, while maintaining staff welfare and comfort.

  The efficiency and effectiveness of business in Scotland is assisted through environmental audit consultancy services such as the European, Community econ-management and auditing scheme sponsored by the Department of the Environment and is promoted by Scottish Office staff through a regional network.

  Promotion of the economic benefits to come from environmental auditing and related processes is a matter largely for the enterprise network of Scottish Enterprise,
  590
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. For example, the Scottish Office has worked with Scottish Natural Heritage, a number of local enterprise companies and enterprise trusts and KPMG to sponsor the centre for environment and business in Scotland to produce a catalogue of case studies of good environmental management in companies of all types and sizes.

  The environmental technology best practice programme run in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry concentrates on waste minimisation and cost-effective cleaner technology providing services direct to business. The energy efficiency best practice programme, part of the Government effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, has enabled companies in Scotland, as elsewhere, to reduce their emissions while at the same time making substantial reductions in their energy costs. The Clyde waste minimisation project run by the Glasgow development agency with Dunbartonshire Enterprise, Renfrewshire Enterprise and Enterprise Ayrshire, is another example which has enabled a range of companies to reduce their costs while at the same time bringing benefits to the environment.

  Police Complaints (Injuries)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have officially complained about injuries they have suffered allegedly at the hands of police officers in Scotland in the last two years. [4577]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of complaints of alleged assaults by police officers against members of the public which have been received by the police are as follows:

  Year

  Number of alleged assaults

  1995

  1,010

  1996

  612

  Court Waiting Time
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics his Department collates on the interval between a charge being made by the police and appearance in court by the accused for different offences in different parts of Scotland. [4725]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statistics requested are not collated by the Scottish Office. It is not always necessary for the police to charge an accused before reporting that accused to the procurator fiscal for consideration for prosecution.

  Police Custody (Deaths)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for those who have died in police custody in Scotland in the last two years (i) the location of their death, (ii) the reasons for the deaths ascertained so far, and (iii) what action was taken in respect of the police officer involved; and if he will make a statement. [4576]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the location of and reason for death in respect of persons who have died in police custody or otherwise with the
  591
  police in Scotland since November 1994 is set out in the table. All such deaths are thoroughly investigated by an appointed senior police officer and reported to the procurator fiscal, who decides whether any criminal proceedings are warranted. In all cases where a person dies in legal custody, the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 requires a fatal accident inquiry to be held, in which all the circumstances surrounding the death are subject to examination.

  Location of death

  Reason for death

  Kilmarnock police station

  Acute fatty infiltration of liver. Toxic effects of alcohol.

  Southern general hospital, Glasgow

  Sub-dural haemorrhage.

  Southern general hospital, Glasgow

  Head injury.

  Levenmouth police station, Methil

  Head injuries. Probable alcohol-related fall.

  Gorbals police station, Glasgow

  Hanging.

  Kilbirnie police station, Glasgow

  Head injury with brain damage. Fractured skull.

  Motherwell police station

  Acute haemorrhagic pancreatitis. Chronic alcoholism.

  Edinburgh royal infirmary

  Fatal dose of dihydrocodeine in liver. Toxic dose of dihydrocodeine in blood.

  Oban police station

  Acute pulmonary congestion and oedema.

  Dalkeith police station

  Acute alcohol intoxication, hypertensive heart disease and coronary atheroma.

  Motherwell police station

  Pulmonary oedema and congestion.

  Western general hospital, Edinburgh

  Blunt force head injury; haemophilia.

  Kirkcaldy police station

  Hanging.

  Hawick police station

  Inhalation of gastric contents; acute intoxication with alcohol.

  Aberdeen royal infirmary

  Heart attack.

  Southern general hospital, Glasgow

  Head injury/fall.

  The Victoria infirmary, Glasgow

  Hanging.

  Aberdeen royal infirmary

  Myocardial infarction (heart attack).

  Southern general hospital, Glasgow

  Head injury.

  Inverclyde royal hospital, Greenock

  Head injury/fall.

  Glasgow royal infirmary

  Pulmonary oedema and congestion.

  Edinburgh royal infirmary

  Undetermined, pending further laboratory investigations.

  Foresterhill hospital, Aberdeen

  Ischaemic heart disease.

  Glasgow royal infirmary

  Not yet known.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to encourage transfer of local authority housing stock to housing associations. [3718]
  592
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Earlier this year, the Scottish Office issued draft guidance on housing stock transfers to local authorities and other interested parties for comments. The comments received are currently being considered and the final guidance will be issued shortly.

  Over the summer, in meetings with housing conveners of Scottish local authorities, I encouraged them to examine the benefits that housing transfers can offer. Scottish Office officials have also been available to discuss the implications of stock transfer with individual authorities.

  In addition, a working group has been set up to look at the regulation and monitoring of new social landlords, such as local housing companies. The group, which comprises representatives from Scottish Homes, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and funders, is due to hold its first meeting in early December.

  Education Buildings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much capital expenditure local authorities have been permitted to make on education buildings in Scotland(a) in real and (b) constant prices; and how much has been spent in (i) real and (ii) constant prices in each year since 1979. [4443]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Capital allocations for educational building from 1979–80

  £000's

  Year

  At out-turn prices

  At 1995–96 prices

  1979–80

  53,605

  137,371

  1980–81

  56,678

  122,757

  1981–82

  62,213

  122,861

  1982–83

  53,669

  98,940

  1983–84

  45,755

  80,611

  1984–85

  40,310

  67,621

  1985–86

  50,275

  79,955

  1986–87

  47,480

  73,299

  1987–88

  53,175

  77,941

  1988–89

  61,315

  84,235

  1989–90

  65,555

  84,181

  1990–91

  62,619

  74,465

  1991–92

  73,291

  81,909

  1992–93

  85,647

  91,853

  1993–94

  78,489

  81,826

  1994–95

  72,989

  74,755

  1995–96

  69,258

  69,258

  1. Within the total capital allocations made to authorities, allocations applying to specific programmes are advisory and do not restrict to that figure.

  2. The total allocations for educational building include elements for further education from 1979–80 to 1992–93, and community education from 1985–86 onwards.

  3. These figures include supplementary allocations where appropriate.

  4. As from 1996–97 authorities are given a single allocation covering all their non-housing capital programmes. An advisory for educational building is not separately identified.

  593

  Capital expenditure for educational building from 1979–80

  £000s

  Year

  At out-turn prices

  At 1995–96 prices

  1979–80

  52,926

  135,631

  1980–81

  55,799

  120,853

  1981–82

  64,283

  126,949

  1982–83

  58,159

  107,217

  1983–84

  52,825

  93,067

  1984–85

  51,429

  86,273

  1985–86

  57,522

  91,480

  1986–87

  55,150

  85,140

  1987–88

  59,414

  87,085

  1988–89

  74,102

  101,802

  1989–90

  81,593

  104,776

  1990–91

  78,284

  93,093

  1991–92

  82,046

  91,693

  1992–93

  100,860

  108,168

  1993–94

  104,609

  109,056

  1994–95

  121,942

  124,892

  1995–96

  Not yet available

  Not yet available

  1. Compiled from local authority financial returns.

  2. The figures include expenditure on further education from 1979–80 to 1992–93, and community education from 1985–86.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the number of schools in a seriously sub-standard condition in Scotland and of the amount of money needed to repair them; [4444]

  (2) what research he has conducted into the physical condition of schools in Scotland; and what conclusions were reached; [4448]

  (3) how many replacement schools are currently being constructed in Scotland; and where. [4449]

  Mr. Robertson
  The overall management of school buildings is a matter for individual education authorities. Detailed information on the physical condition of schools, or on the progress of individual school building projects, is not held centrally.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on school buildings in Scotland under the private finance initiative. [4445]

  Mr. Robertson
  There has been no such expenditure to date.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which school building projects in Scotland are currently being considered for financing through the private finance initiative. [4446]

  Mr. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend is aware that the following authorities are actively considering the following school building projects through the private finance initiative.Falkirk council: refurbishment of Bo'ness academy; refurbishment of a group of schools including Graeme, Woodlands and Larbert high schools;
  Stirling council: replacement of Balfron high school;
  Aberdeenshire council: construction of new Garioch academy;
  East Renfrewshire council: the extension of St. Ninian's high school; construction of new primary school in Newton Mearns.
  594
  However, he does not collect systematically information from local authorities about school building projects which they may be exploring under the private finance initiative. Authorities are likely therefore to have a number of other projects at earlier stages of consideration.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from(a) the finance industry and (b) the construction industry about the usefulness of the private finance initiative for school building; and what those representations were. [4447]

  Mr. Robertson
  Scottish Office Ministers have had frequent contacts with members of the construction and financial services industries concerning progress with the private finance initiative since its launch in 1992. We welcome constructive ideas from the private sector and encourage local authorities to explore the option of the initiative for suitable projects in all areas of public service for which they have responsibility.

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what stage the recruitment process for the chief executive of the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust has now reached; how much has been spent on this exercise by the trust; which outside agencies have been appointed to assist in the recruitment process; and when an appointment will be made. [5052]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The closing date for applications was 15 November 1996. The only costs have been in advertising the post. No agencies have been appointed by the trust to assist in the recruitment process. The trust expects that an appointment will be made by the latter part of December 1996.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to suspend the recruitment of the chief executive of the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust pending a review of the provision of acute medical services by NHS trusts in Ayrshire. [5053]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The recruitment process is a matter for the trust.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is currently carrying out the duties of the chief executive of the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust. [5055]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Lindsay C. Tolland is the current acting chief executive.

  Acute Medical Services (Ayrshire)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to carry out a review of the current provision of acute medical services within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area with a view to the creation of a single acute NHS trust for Ayrshire. [5054]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so. The organisation of health provision is a matter for the health board and the NHS trusts to agree in accordance with their shared assessment of health needs for the area.
  595
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between the Scottish Office, the Ayrshire and Arran health board and the South and North Ayrshire NHS trusts relating to the amalgamation of the existing acute NHS trusts to provide a single acute service NHS trust for Ayrshire and Arran. [5050]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been no such discussions.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Scottish Office has received in the last three years in respect of the creation of a single acute NHS trust for the Ayrshire and Arran area. [5051]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The only written representations received were from the hon. Member on 27 July and 3 September 1994. The hon. Member also raised the matter during the Scottish Grand Committee debate in Ayr on 10 June 1996.

  Kilwinning Plant Closure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what types of financial assistance have been given to(a) Robert Wilson and Sons Ltd., (b) Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group Ltd. and (c) their subsidiary companies by his Department during the last five years. [5046]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  None. An offer of regional selective assistance was made to Robert Wilson and Sons (Est. 1849) Ltd. in March 1995 to assist the installation of new machinery to improve produce quality and to help the company to develop into new markets; however, none of this grant has been claimed.

HEALTH

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the running costs of the minor accident treatment service unit at Edgware general hospital. [3906]

  Mr. Malone
  The running costs of the minor accident treatment service at Edgware general hospital include overhead costs shared with the accident and emergency department. It is therefore not possible to disaggregate the accurate full costs of the present minor accident treatment service facility.

  Dentists (Sunderland)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general dental practitioners and (b) community dental practitioners practise dentistry in Sunderland health authority's area. [4417]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is contained in the table:596

  General dental service and community dental service: number of general dental practitioners1,2,3 at 30 June 1996 and community dentists4 at 30 September 1995 in Sunderland health authority

  Number of general dental practitioners1,2,3 at 30 June 1996

  Number of community dentists4,5 whole-time equivalent, at 30 September 1995

  88

  10

  1 The number of dentists (principals) on the health authority list and their assistants and vocational trainees.

  2 Some dentists have a contract with more than one health authority. All dentists in Sunderland are included.

  3 Excludes hospital dentists.

  4 Figure for community dentists is whole time equivalent and represents the number of staff allocated by Sunderland health commission, priority Healthcare Wearside NHS trust and City Hospitals Sunderland NHS trust.

  5 Figure is rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mental Illness
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of a recent report by the World Health Organisation into the extent of mental illness; and if he will make a statement. [4754]

  Mr. Burns
  I welcome "Mental Illness in General Health Care", edited by T. B. Üstün and N. Sartorious. It is a very useful contribution to our understanding of the importance of primary health care in the development of mental health services. We are already taking a number of steps to improve the ability of general practitioners to understand, diagnose and manage mental illness.

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount allocated for HIV treatment in each NHS trust. [4716]

  Mr. Horam
  National Health Service trusts receive no central funding for HIV treatment. Funding for HIV treatment, together with all other income, is included in contracts with purchasers.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4526]

  Mr. Horam
  Internally, the Department operates an effective energy and environment action plan which promotes all aspects of green housekeeping and which is regularly reviewed. Additionally, major energy audits of three of the main London buildings were recently undertaken and the majority of recommendations have already been implemented. Externally, contractors for building and office services are required to demonstrate their own environmental policies when invited to tender and their environmental performance is included in our assessment of their tenders.

  Guidance to the national health service encourages it to engage in pro-environmental measures and to ensure that the environment is given thorough consideration in the development of policies at all levels. For example the NHS's old inefficient incinerators have been closed down

  597
  and replaced with fewer, modern installations which fully comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As part of the target to reduce energy consumption and stabilise carbon dioxide emissions, the NHS has introduced some 200 combined heat and power installations to make more efficient use of fossil fuel, and one of these provided this Department's case study example in response to the United Kingdom round table on sustainable development.

  In 1996, NHS Estates—an executive agency of the Department of Health—introduced an award for the "best environmental initiative" in its health care estate management awards.

  Fostering and Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation on fostering and adoption in the current Session. [4511]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government will introduce adoption legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. There are no plans to revise fostering legislation at this time.

  Prescriptions
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the (i) percentage and (ii) amount of the NHS prescription charge received on each prescription by pharmacists in(a) 1979, (b) 1984, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) 1996. [4506]

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

  Year

  Average prescription charge as a percentage of average total cost per prescription

  Average total cost per prescription £

  Average prescription charge during the year (see note 2) £

  1979

  13

  2·43

  0·31

  1984

  35

  4·39

  1·55

  1987

  43

  5·46

  2·35

  1992

  48

  7·60

  3·66

  1995

  60

  8·57

  5·13

  1 The data used are obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority PD1 series of forms and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in England. The number of prescriptions are based on fees.

  2 The prescription charges used to obtain the average prescription charge during each year was as follows:

  1979 : 1 January to 15 July—£0.20, 16 July to 31 December—£0.45; 1984 : 1 January to 31 March—£1.40, 1 April to 31 December—£1.60; 1987 : 1 January to 31 March—£2.20, 1 April to 31 December—£2.40; 1992 : 1 January to 31 March—£3.40, 1 April to 31 December—£.3.75; 1995 : 1 January to 31 March—£4.75, 1 April to 31 December—£5.25.

  3 Information for 1996 is not yet available.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of all NHS prescriptions issued in Sheffield in the last 12 months for which figures are available were free of charge; and if he will make a statement. [4832]

  Mr. Malone
  In the area covered by the Sheffield family health services authority, 85 per cent. of prescription items were dispensed free of charge to patients in 1995.
  598
  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the future of resale price maintenance for prescription medicines. [4505]

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

  Resale price maintenance is unlawful under the Resale Prices Act 1976, subject to the possibility of exemption by the restrictive practices court on public interest grounds. The Director General of Fair Trading announced on 18 October that he was seeking leave of the court to apply for a discharge of its 1970 order in respect of resale price maintenance on ethical and proprietary medicines. If leave is given, it will be for the court to decide whether the 1970 order remains in the public interest. The Secretary of State has no statutory role or discretion in relation to the director-general's application or in relation to the court's consideration of the case.

  Limb Lane Secure Unit
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Limb Lane secure unit in Sheffield. [4830]

  Mr. Burns
  The Limb Lane unit is a new eight-place secure unit for children. It is being constructed by Sheffield city council and funded by a grant from the Department of Health. It is part of the national secure accommodation development programme, which will provide an additional 170 places by the middle of next year. The unit is expected to be completed early in the new year.

  Water Disconnection
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collate centrally information on families that have contracted a disease due to their supply of domestic water being cut off; and if he will make a statement. [5142]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra(a) general and specialist paediatric intensive care beds and (b) high dependency beds are to be provided this year; and if he will list their locations. [4805]

  Mr. Horam
  The chief executive of the national health service executive reported earlier this year on plans to increase the provision of beds for critically ill children and gave their location by region. Copies of this report, "Paediatric Intensive Care", which was published on 29 May, are in the Library. Most of these additional beds are scheduled to open this year; many are now available and the others will open shortly.

  Learning Disabilities
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total resource allocation for learning disabilities and its percentage of the local budget in each of the last five years [4807]
  599
  Mr. Burns
  There is no specific allocation for services for people with learning disabilities. Health authorities are given general allocations for hospital and community health services to purchase health care services for their resident population.

  Homicides and Suicides (Inquiries)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many confidential inquiries into homicides and suicides have been undertaken in each of the last five years; and what plans he has to publish an analysis of the results of these inquiries. [4808]

  Mr. Burns
  The confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people was set up in 1991, funded by the Department and undertaken by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Two reports have been published: "A Preliminary Report on Homicides", in August 1994, analysed 22 cases of homicides; and the "Report of the Confidential Inquiry into Homicides and Suicides by Mentally Ill People", in January 1996, analysed 39 cases of homicide and 240 cases of suicide. Both these reports are available in the Library.

  Registered Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents have taken place in homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, broken down by category of home in each of the last five years. [4810]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 March 1996,Official Report, column 774, concerning capitation formula, what was the date of the latest revision of the formula; what changes were made; and when it came into force. [5072]

  Mr. Horam
  A major review of the national weighted

  £ billion

  Great Britain

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  1995–96

  National Insurance Fund

  Class 1 employee and employer

  Gross

  51·85

  61·70

  69·70

  75·35

  43·95

  C/O rebate

  5·95

  5·85

  5·55

  5·60

  5·25

  Net

  45·90

  55·85

  64·15

  69·75

  38·70

  Class 1A for cars and car fuel

  0·45

  0·55

  0·60

  0·70

  0·45

  Total

  46·35

  56·40

  64·75

  70·45

  39·15

  National Health Service

  Class 1

  5·60

  6·55

  7·35

  7·85

  4·70

  Class 1A

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  Total

  5·65

  6·60

  7·40

  7·90

  4·75

  Total all contributions

  Class 1

  Gross

  57·45

  68·25

  77·05

  83·20

  48·65

  C/O rebate

  5·95

  5·85

  5·55

  5·60

  5·25

  Net

  51·50

  62·40

  71·50

  77·60

  43·40

  Class 1A

  0·50

  0·60

  0·65

  0·75

  0·50

  Total

  52·00

  63·00

  72·15

  78·35

  43·90

  600
  capitation formula took place in 1994. As a result, new adjustments for need and cost were introduced in 1995–96 for allocations to regional health authorities. The revised formula was used to inform allocations to health authorities in 1996–97.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 337, what information is collected centrally on commitments entered into by NHS trusts arising from private finance initiative projects; and to what extent this information includes data on long-term revenue commitments arising from such projects. [5090]

  Mr. Horam
  Information including trust name, scheme description, capital value of scheme and status of the project is collected centrally on private finance initiative projects with a capital value of £1 million or over that have been approved since November 1992. Estimates on long-term revenue commitments arising from the private finance initiative for each individual trust are not collected centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the combined national insurance contribution income from employers and employees and (b) expenditure on the basic retirement pension and on all benefits, at present contribution rates and levels of benefit, for the years (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2010–11, (iii) 2020–21, (iv) 2030–31 and (v) 1995–96, if the Government Actuary's assumptions for later years are applied to that year and separately identifying for each set of figures (1) health service charges, (2) occupational pension rebates, (3) personal pension rebates and (4) personal pension subsidies. [5306]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is in the table:
  601

  £ billion

  Great Britain

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  1995–96

  Rebates for personal pensions

  Total paid in year

  2·10

  2·65

  2·50

  2·15

  11·90

  Benefit expenditure

  Retirement pension (flat-rate)

  29·80

  33·60

  35·20

  41·90

  27·30

  Retirement pension (additional)

  4·20

  8·40

  10·90

  12·00

  2·20

  Other benefits

  8·20

  8·80

  10·30

  9·90

  10·20

  Total

  42·20

  50·80

  56·40

  63·80

  39·70

  Notes:

  1 Includes the 1 per cent. additional rebate.

  2 Calculations are based on assumptions adopted for the report by the Government Actuary on the third quinquennial review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC 160), except for 1995–96 where actual figures are shown because it would not be appropriate to use demographic assumptions relating to later years. All figures are discounted to put them in 1994–95 price terms.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Benefits Agency and trade unions about staffing levels and resources in the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [4515]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis he has undertaken of the impact of the jobseeker's allowance on young widows on benefit; and if he will make a statement. [4575]

  Mr. Evans
  We have in place a long-term programme of monitoring and evaluation of jobseeker's allowance.

  Widows who wish to claim jobseeker's allowance are required to be available for employment. However, a widow whose youngest child is below the age of 16 may claim income support without being available for employment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the case of Mr. Ron Fisher of Gulston road, Coventry, and the jobseeker's allowance. [4563]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 19 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will review the case of Ron Fisher of Gulstan Road, Coventry, and the jobseeker's allowance.
  In the interests of confidentiality I have written to you separately about Mr. Fisher's claim to Job Seekers Allowance. I have outlined the background to Mr. Fisher's claim and the action taken by both the Benefits Agency Office and Employment Service Jobcentre.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about liaison between jobcentres and his Department over the jobseeker's allowance. [4564]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of the payment of the jobseeker's allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  602
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 19 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will make a statement about liaison between job centres and his Department over the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).
  JSA was introduced on the 7 October and is delivered jointly by the Benefits Agency (BA) and Employment Service (ES).
  JSA and other relevant services for Jobseekers are being provided from Jobcentres, the majority of which now have BA staff working in them. Day to day liaison between BA and ES is the responsibility of local managers and staff and is working effectively. These local arrangements are supported by formal joint management structures at District, Area and National level and a Memorandum of Understanding between the two Agency Chief Executives.
  Between formal meetings, managers and staff from the two agencies work together on a daily basis to ensure the smooth delivery of JSA.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 November Official Report, column 144, if he will list the representatives of the building societies the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People met on 13 November,
  indicating the building societies to which they belong. [4762]

  Mr. Burt
  I met the director general and other members of staff of the Building Societies Association. The association represents buildings societies in general.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 7 November, what factors underlay the scale of increases in the total sums spent on benefit for single parents. [4761]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Expenditure on lone parent benefits rose from £1.8 billion in 1978–79 to £9.5 billion in 1995–96—1995–96 prices. The most significant factor underlying the scale of this increase is the growth of lone parenthood in the general population, and in particular the growth of single, never married lone parents, who are less likely to be in work or receiving maintenance, and therefore more likely to be dependent on income support.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral answer by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) of 12 November Official Report, column 143–44, if he will list the issues on which the National Disability Council has offered advice to Ministers on its own initiative; if he will list the dates on which such advice was offered; and if he will indicate in which cases Ministers (a) accepted and (b) rejected such advice. [4763]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government have regular contact with the National Disability Council. The council has given advice on a wide range of issues relevant to the reduction and elimination of discrimination against disabled people. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires the National Disability Council to provide the Secretary of State with an annual report which he must lay before Parliament and arrange for further publication as he considers appropriate. The annual report for 1995–96 was published on 9 July 1996. Copies were placed in the Library. It records, among other things, advice the council has given during the previous financial year. The council is required to produce a similar report as soon as is practicable after the current financial year.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what proportion of applications for disability living allowance or for an upgrade to higher rate disability living allowance an adverse decision is given without the adjudication officer seeking information from the claimant's general practitioner or hospital consultant. [4846]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested; the available information is given below.

  A claimant is invited to provide supporting statements with his claim, for example from a GP, carer or social worker. Information from such sources may also be requested by an adjudication officer who may further ask for an examining medical practitioner's report. Information is sought from the most suitable source, and this may not be a GP or hospital consultant if, for example, the claimant has not recently attended for treatment.

  Disability living allowance decisions made April 1992 to October 19961,2

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Decisions involving any additional evidence other than from a GP or hospital (Thousands)

  Adverse decisions (of col 2) (Thousands)

  Adverse decisions as a percentage of decisions (col 3 as a percentage of col 2)

  Initial claims

  1,568

  3705

  45

  Other decisions4

  1,414

  5955

  68

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Notes:

  1 All figures are rounded and are for decisions based on evidence provided in the claim pack, which may include a GP's statement.

  2 Cases where the type of evidence used is unknown have been excluded.
  604
  3 An adverse decision is one where benefit is refused.

  4 Decisions made for renewal claims, reviews and appeals.

  5 An adverse decision is one where either a previous refusal has been upheld, or where the benefit was previously awarded and the decision is not to increase the level of the award.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5077]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from PFI contracts. Such information is now being collated. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed PFI contracts would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the steps taken by the Child Support Agency to secure liability orders within a reasonable time on parents who consistently avoid providing maintenance for their children; [4123]

  (2) how many complaints the Child Support Agency has received in the last year about fathers who successfully avoid making any payment due to the mothers of their children, whose cases have been registered by the Child Support Agency. [4125]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Sir Dudley Smith, dated 19 November 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about liability orders and complaints to the Agency about fathers who avoid paying their maintenance.
  The Agency makes every effort to ensure that absent parents meet their maintenance liability, and takes various forms of enforcement action where this does not happen.
  You have specifically asked about liability orders which are applied for through the courts, mainly against non-compliant self employed absent parents. In the period from 1 April 1996 to 30 September 1996 the number of liability orders the Agency applied for was 1,082; this is an increase of 55% on the same period last year.
  Each such case is considered on its merits. Legal action against an absent parent is a serious step and is not taken lightly. Nevertheless, if all other voluntary methods fails and if a deduction from earnings order is not a possibility, then a liability order is applied for. Additionally, since May of this year the Agency has been able to enter liability orders as debts in the County Court Register of Judgments, which may in turn affect credit availability for the absent parent concerned.
  I am afraid I cannot give you an answer to your question about the number of complaints against fathers who do not comply with child support liability. There is no business need for us to categories

  605
  complaints along the lines that you describe. For example, whether they are about one or other party to child maintenance or by gender within that category.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Court Orders (Avoidance)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he issues to police forces in respect of obtaining evidence about anyone who consistently avoids their responsibilities under court and official orders by constantly changing their address. [4123]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. This is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has(a) conducted and (b) evaluated about the costs faced by Northern Ireland students who study in Great Britain because of a lack of higher education places in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [3582]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Unemployment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have experienced at least one period of unemployment since 1979. [3936]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is available only from October 1993. In the three-year period to October 1996, 196,787 people have made at least one new claim for unemployment-related benefit.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the unemployment figures on the basis of the current statistical definition in each of the last 10 years in Northern Ireland. [3944]

  Mr. Ancram
  The unemployment figures on the basis of the current statistical definition in each of the last 10 years in Northern Ireland were as follows:

  Year

  Annual average figure

  Percentage of the work force

  1987

  120,400

  16·4

  1988

  111,100

  15·0

  1989

  103,300

  14·0

  1990

  95,300

  12·8

  1991

  99,100

  12·9

  1992

  104,700

  13·8

  1993

  103,700

  13·7

  1994

  97,100

  12·6

  1995

  88,100

  11·4

  19961

  85,800

  11·1

  1 January to October.

  606
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the population of working age in Northern Ireland were unemployed in each year since 1979. [3945]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information, which is available on a consistent only basis from 1984, is as follows:

  Percentage working age population unemployed (ILO definition)

  Spring

  1984

  12·1

  1985

  11·7

  1986

  11·6

  1987

  11·0

  1988

  10·2

  1989

  9·3

  1990

  8·7

  1991

  9·0

  1992

  9·1

  1993

  9·1

  1994

  8·3

  1995

  8·0

  1996

  7·1

  Source:

  Northern Ireland Labour Force Survey, spring 1984 to spring 1996.

  Carrowdore Village
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what residential developments have been approved for Carrowdore village; how many homes are planned for each development; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the footways to support these developments; what proposals there are to provide increased accommodation at Carrowdore primary school; and if he will make a statement about the future growth of Carrowdore village [3909]

  Mr. Ancram
  The South-Eastern education and library board has no plans to provide additional accommodation at Carrowdore primary school.

  Responsibility for the planning matters raised have been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given to these points.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 18 November 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your recent question about the future development of Carrowdore Village.
  In the last 9 years, a total of 7 residential developments, comprising 121 new houses, have been approved within the development limited of Carrowdore village as follows:

  Location

  Units

  Date approved

  Church Walk

  10

  23 June 1987

  Main Street

  22

  18 January 1988

  Manse Road

  22

  4 April 1990

  New Road

  13

  9 April 1991

  Castle Place

  5

  22 April 1992

  Church Road

  7

  14 September 1995

  Main Street

  42

  13 February 1996

  A monitoring survey carried out in July of this year indicated that to date, 47 of these houses have been built. The adequacy of the footways to support these developments was taken into account in determining the planning applications for these proposals.

  607
  The North Down and Ards Area Plan 1984–1995, which remains the statutory development plan for the area, identifies a development limit for Carrowdore village. Within that development limit, there is scope for further housing other than for that for which planning approval has already been granted. The future growth of the village will be considered when the Area Plan is reviewed.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when Main street in Carrowdore village was last resurfaced; when it is proposed next to resurface the street; and if he will make a statement; [3911]

  (2) what proposals he has to provide a footway from the Manse Court junction with Ballyblack road east to the existing footway at Main street, Carrowdore; and if he will make a statement. [3910]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. G. P. Fraser. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 15 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your questions about the resurfacing of Main Street, Carrowdore and the provision of a footway from the Manse Court junction with Ballyblack Road to the existing footway at Main Street, Carrowdore. In his absence I am replying on his behalf.
  We have no records to indicate the last time Main Street, Carrowdore was resurfaced and can only confirm that it was prior to 1973. Roads Service intends to surface dress the carriageway next summer following the completion of Water Service work in the area.
  We have no proposals to construct a footway at the location in question.

  Job Creation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been created in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [3938]

  Mr. Ancram
  The creation of jobs over the past 10 years is demonstrated by the rise in the number in employment. The position for each of the last 10 years is set out in the table:

  Northern Ireland civil employment at June of each year

  Year

  Employers in employment

  Self employed

  Civil employed

  Change in civil employed over year

  1986

  501,400

  75,700

  577,100

  —

  1987

  504,100

  83,200

  587,300

  +10,200

  1988

  517,200

  87,000

  604,200

  +16,900

  1989

  525,600

  85,100

  611,700

  +7,600

  1990

  533,200

  90,300

  628,500

  +16,700

  1991

  542,100

  92,200

  634,300

  +5,800

  1992

  543,600

  83,300

  626,900

  -7,400

  1993

  545,400

  80,700

  627,100

  +200

  1994

  557,800

  82,200

  640,000

  +12,900

  1995

  573,000

  82,800

  655,800

  +15,800

  1996

  573,100

  82,800

  655,900

  +100

  Figures rounded to the nearest 100 and may not sum due to rounding. Self-employed estimates for 1996 are currently not available. In accordance with practice the estimate is held constant at the level of the previous year.

  Low Pay
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland currently earn less than £2.50 per hour. [3937]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on hourly earnings in Northern Ireland is available from the "New Earnings Survey" and relates to the proportion of employees within the earnings band specified. The latest figures available are for April 1995 when 0.9 per cent. of full-time male employees and 1.3 per cent. of full-time female employees earned less than £2.50 per hour.

  Source: New Earnings Survey, April 1995.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the expenditure on benefits paid in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [3943]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Year

  Benefit spend (£ million)

  1985–86

  1,230·7

  1986–87

  1,335·5

  1987–88

  1,403·6

  1988–89

  1,465·6

  1989–90

  1,557·1

  1990–91

  1,707·7

  1991–92

  1,951·1

  1992–93

  2,211·5

  1993–94

  2,469·7

  1994–95

  2,648·2

  1995–961

  2,833·1

  1 Estimated figures.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) people and (b) children under the age of 18 years have been diagnosed as alcoholics in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4410]

  Mr. Moss
  The information available is given in the table. The Department of Health and Social Services intends next year to commission a review of its strategy on alcohol misuse.

  The number of in-patients discharged at least once from Northern Ireland mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units with a primary diagnosis of alcohol dependence syndrome is shown in the table:

  In-patients diagnosed

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  All ages

  856

  922

  921

  Aged under 18

  2

  5

  1

  Figures are based on code 303 of the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, alcohol dependence syndrome.

  Anti-social Tenants
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to review
  609
  the Northern Ireland Housing Executive allocation policy to ensure that anti-social tenants can be transferred to new accommodation under a negative points system. [4458]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and the chief executive has advised me that the transfer of any tenant, including those deemed guilty of anti-social behaviour, is governed by the executive's transfer policy and not its allocation policy. The executive has no powers compulsorily to transfer a secure tenant. A transfer takes place on the basis of a request from, and agreement with, an individual tenant. There are no plans to change this policy.

  In cases where tenants are deemed guilty of anti-social behaviour, the executive, under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, has powers through the courts, to seek repossession of its property. However, before taking such action, the executive will invoke its neighbourhood complaints procedure in an attempt to settle any disputes. For the future, it is envisaged that a draft Northern Ireland Housing Order 1997 will contain provisions strengthening the grounds for repossession where a tenant is guilty of anti-social behaviour, and provide for injunctions, backed by a power of arrest, to be granted in such cases. These provisions are similar to those contained in the Housing Act 1996.

  District Council Client Officers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the district councils in Northern ireland have their chief officers designated as(a) town clerk, (b) chief executive, (c) town clerk and chief executive and (d) other designation. [4396]

  Mr. Moss
  None of the 26 district councils uses the designation town clerk. Seven councils refer to their chief officer as chief executive, 12 refer to the post-holder as town clerk and chief executive and seven refer to the post-holder as clerk and chief executive.

  Private Clegg
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to refer the case of Private Clegg back to the Court of Appeal. [4288]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend received from Lee William Clegg's solicitors an application that his case be referred to the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland again under section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has sought an independent scientific report on the material submitted in support of the application to assist him in deciding whether he would be justified in referring the case to the Court of Appeal.

  Terrorism (Compensation)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many and what occasions and dates he has used his exceptional power to pay criminal injury or damage compensation to(a) terrorists (b) members and (c) former members of illegal organisations. [4453]
  610
  Sir John Wheeler
  In the four and a half years since my right hon. and learned Friend took up his duties in Northern Ireland, the discretionary power to make payments in lieu of compensation where applicants have been disallowed because of convictions for terrorism and/or for membership of unlawful association has been exercised on four occasions and on the basis of the special circumstances of each individual case. All these applicants had previous convictions for terrorism and none for membership of unlawful associations. In 1993–94 there was one payment, in 1994–95 there were two payments and in 1995–96 there was one payment. No payments have been, or are likely to be, made to any applicant who has a continuing membership of an unlawful association.

  Arable Area Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many payments were made in Northern Ireland in 1995–96 for set-aside under the arable area scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000 and (f) over £25,001. [4225]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Value £

  Set-aside payment 1995–96

  0-5,000

  201

  5,001-10,000

  11

  10,001-15,000

  1

  15,001-20,000

  —

  20,001-25,000

  —

  Over 25,000

  —

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many payments were made in Northern Ireland in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) 5,001 and £10,000, (c) 10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000 and (k) £200,001 and over. [4226]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Arable Area Payments 1995–96

  £

  Less favoured areas (LFA)

  Non less favoured areas

  0-5000

  878

  2,198

  5,001-10,000

  12

  66

  10,001-15,000

  2

  54

  15,001-20,000

  2

  28

  20,001-25,000

  —

  19

  25,001-50,000

  —

  27

  50,001-75,000

  —

  —

  75,001-100,000

  —

  —

  100,001-150,000

  —

  —

  150,001-200,000

  —

  —

  200,001-and over

  —

  —

  Total payments

  894

  2,392

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5079]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure which is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

DEFENCE

  Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what qualifications are required for service personnel to fly helicopters in each of the services. [4424]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: The qualifications required by service personnel to fly helicopters are as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Education—minimum five GCSEs (English and Mathematics) and two A-levels (or equivalent)

  Flying aptitude tests and medical

  Initial officer training

  Army

  Minimum rank Lance-corporal (recommended for Corporal)

  Pre-selection course, including aptitude tests, written tests and medical

  Royal Air Force

  Education—minimum five GCSEs (English and Mathematics) and two A-levels (or equivalent)

  Flying aptitude tests and medical

  Initial officer training

  Elementary flying training

  Basic, advanced and operational helicopter flying training are currently carried out separately by the single services. However, from 1 April 1997 all basic and advanced helicopter training will be provided for the three services by the defence helicopter flying school, a tri-service establishment at Shawbury.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 521, what arrangements have been made for industrial participation in respect of the purchase of helicopters. [3664]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As part of the Apache industrial participation arrangements, GKN Westland committed that 50 per cent. of the baseline contract work would be placed in the UK. GKN Westland has now identified how this will be achieved. It has already placed contracts for 35 per cent. and its offshore subcontractors have placed contracts for a further 5 per cent., making a total of 612
  40 per cent. In accordance with MOD policy, the contract awards from the offshore subcontractors are now being audited to verify their claims. GKN Westland is thus well on course to meet its commitment in full.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the paper in The New England Journal of Medicine, reporting the mortality studies of Gulf war veterans conducted by Dr. Han Kang. [4573]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has noted with interest the paper "Mortality among US Veterans of the Persian Gulf War" by Dr. Han Kang and Tim Bullman.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the interim report of the US presidential advisory committee on Gulf war veterans' illnesses. [4571]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has noted the interim report of the US presidential advisory committee, and will examine its final report, when published, with great interest.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the director of the Persian Gulf Veterans Co-ordinating Board in the US concerning research on the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [4574]

  Mr. Soames
  I visited the US earlier this month, where I held discussions with the senior members of the US Administration and their staff, including the director of the Persian Gulf Veterans Co-ordinating Board, about research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. My Department's officials, both here and in Washington, maintain a very close liaison with their US colleagues, including the director of the Persian Gulf Veterans Co-ordinating Board, on research and other issues relating to the health of Gulf war veterans.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the research carried out by the division of epidemiology and scientific graphics laboratory at the South Western medical school in Dallas relating to the causes of illnesses developed by Gulf war veterans. [4572]

  Mr. Soames
  We are aware of research into Gulf health issues being conducted at the University of Texas South Western medical school in Dallas, including the work of Dr. Robert Haley. We will look with interest at the results of Dr. Haley's research when they are published.

  Disbanded and Merged Regiments
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will fund a travelling exhibition to exhibit(a) regimental silver, (b) works of art, (c) colours and (d) trophies for all disbanded and merged Regular and Territorial Army regiments. [4819]

  Mr. Soames
  No. The objects concerned are non-public property, and are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The question of any funding for such a travelling exhibition would therefore be for the regiment(s) concerned to address.
  613
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location of(a) regimental silver, (b) works of art, (c) colours and (d) trophies for all disbanded and merged Regular and Territorial Army regiments. [4820]

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

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet representatives from Sheffield museums to discuss mounting an exhibition to exhibit(a) regimental silver, (b) works of art, (c) colours and (d) trophies of the disbanded and merged Regular and Territorial Army regiments. [4906]

  Mr. Soames
  No. The objects mentioned are non-public property, and are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Museums interested in mounting such an exhibition should therefore approach regiments direct.

  Admiral Sir Peter Abbot
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Admiral Sir Peter Abbot required official clearance of the text of his speech to the Royal United Services Institution on 17 October; and to what extent his speech represents Government policy. [5147]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministerial clearance is not required for addresses given to private bodies such as the Royal United Services Institute, whose purpose is to encourage debate of relevant issues. The speech did not represent Government policy; rather, Admiral Abbot was developing a personal view, contributing to just such an academic debate. The issues raised in the speech are already in the public domain.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5087]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has had with(a) Robert Wilson and Sons Ltd., (b) Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group Ltd. and (c) their subsidiary companies during the last five years; what was the value of each of these contracts; what goods were supplied; and to what extent these contracts will be affected by the closure of the Robert Wilsons and Sons Ltd. plant in Kilwinning. [5057]
  614
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The data held centrally for MOD headquarters contracts show that the following contracts have been awarded since 1993:

  Robert Wilson and Sons (Est. 1849) Ltd. (part of Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group)

  Value £

  1995

  Produced at Kilwinning

  Canned meats

  333,000

  Retort pouched meals

  1,392,000

  Pouched water

  42,000

  1996

  Produced at Kilwinning

  Canned meats

  222,400

  Retort pouched meals

  4,639,000

  Pouched water

  59,600

  HL Foods (part of Hillsdown Holdings)

  Value £

  1994

  Produced at Kilwinning

  Canned meats

  265,000

  Retort pouched meals

  1,365,000

  Produced at North Walsham

  Baked beans

  38,000

  1995

  Produced at North Walsham

  Baked beans

  49,000

  1996

  Produced at North Walsham

  Baked beans

  66,000

  The following contracts were placed with the former company Haywood Foods Ltd. part of Hillsdown Holdings plc:

  Hayward Foods Ltd. (part of Hillsdown Holdings)

  1993

  Value £

  Produced at Kilwinning

  Canned meats

  244,000

  Canned puddings

  31,000

  Retort pouch meals

  1,491,000

  Produced at North Walsham

  Baked beans

  34,000

  1994

  Produced at Long Sutton

  Tinned carrots

  19,000

  The above companies are subsidiaries of the large Hillsdown Holdings plc group, which includes a large number of household name food, domestic goods, furniture and property companies, for example, and further research on those companies could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Several of the contracts will be completed before the planned closure of the Kilwinning site early next year. Work that is not completed will be novated to another "sister" company within the Hillsdown Group and it is not expected that there will be any adverse effect on the MOD.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army receive the same pay, pensions, family accommodation and other terms and conditions of service as soldiers in the British Army. [4777]

  Mr. Soames
  A full review of questions relating to Gurkha conditions of service is currently being undertaken by my Department, including questions relating to their pay, family accommodation and other related matters. The review, which has been prompted by the imminent withdrawal from Hong Kong, is examining the existing arrangements with a view to making them more appropriate to the move of the Gurkha home base from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. All Gurka terms and conditions of service are underpinned by the 1947 tri-partite agreement signed by the Governments of India, Nepal and the United Kingdom, and will continue to be governed by these arrangements. In essence, the rates of pay and pension are based on those paid to the Indian army as stated in the agreement. British Gurkhas do, however, receive a substantial addition to their basic pay which takes into account the cost of living in their duty station.

  Gurkha pensions, while not part of the same review, are, as a matter of routine, reviewed annually. One of the factors taken into account is the rate of inflation in Nepal; another is the rates of pension paid to Indian army Gurkhas as governed by the tri-partite agreement. British Gurkha pensions were increased by 15 per cent. in 1996.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4527]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office takes its responsibilities to the environment seriously, and has been represented at each of the green Ministers meetings.

  The policies and programmes of my Department have been assessed as having low direct environmental sensitivity. Thus, the environmental audits undertaken by the Home Office have concentrated on estate management issues where scope for green housekeeping efficiencies has been sought. All local property centres are asked to conduct an annual green housekeeping audit. A programme of energy surveys has been run in response to the target set by the Department of the Environment to reduce energy consumption by 15 per cent. in the period from 1990 to 1995. Notable successes were at the police training centres at Bruche and Cwmbran and at the police scientific development branch premises in Langhurst and Sandridge, where implementing the recommendations of the reviews produced falls in energy consumption of between 16.8 per cent. and 22.9 per cent. over the five years. Where appropriate, the Department adopts the Building Research Establishment environmental
  616
  assessment method as a means of enhancing the environmental performance of new offices and those undergoing major refurbishment.

  Motorways (Objects thrown from Bridges)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police authority area and by location the number of reported incidents involving objects thrown from motorway bridges at vehicles for each year since 1991 to date, including how many(a) injuries were caused, (b) fatalities were caused, (c) resulted in prosecution and (d) resulted in conviction in each year from 1991 to date. [4695]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses in determining the suitability or otherwise of applicants for British citizenship. [4718]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The criterion applied is whether the applicant meets the statutory requirements of the British Nationality Act 1981 relevant to his or her application.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what official publications inform applicants of the criteria that will be used when determining British citizenship applications. [4717]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The requirements for British citizenship are set out in the British Nationality Act 1981 and in a number of information leaflets, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals of applications for British citizenship he has determined since 1992. [4738]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Since 1 January 1992, 32,272 applications for British citizenship have been refused.

  Zoos and Circuses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which provisions of the winter quarters regulations apply to animals held by zoos; if he will apply them to animals held by circuses; and if he will make a statement. [4578]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Zoo Licensing Act 1981, but not the winter quarters regulations, applies to the keeping of animals in zoos. Circus animals will continue to be governed by the Performing Animals (Regulations) 1925 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Alcohol (Minors)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for selling(a) alcohol and (b) alcopops to under-age children have taken place in England and Wales in each of the last five years; what proportion of prosecutions have involved sales from (i) public houses, (ii) off licences, (iii) supermarkets and (iv) other outlets; and if he will make a statement. [4404]
  617
  Mr. Maclean
  The information held centrally does not distinguish between the forms in which alcohol is sold or the types of retail outlet proceeded against.

  The table shows the number of prosecutions for offences of selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 18.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for the offence of selling intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 1 1991 to 1995

  England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  1991

  309

  1992

  195

  1993

  156

  1994

  137

  1995

  198

  1 Section 169(1) Licensing Act 1994.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his policy on people purchasing alcohol on behalf of minors. [4414]

  Mr. Maclean
  I fully support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) to enable the police to confiscate alcohol from people under 18 drinking alcohol in a public place, and to seize alcohol from people who are 18 if it is intended for consumption by under-age drinkers in public.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) people and (b) children under the age of 18 have been prosecuted for alcohol-related crime in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4406]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is possible to distinguish centrally only defendants prosecuted for offences under the intoxicating liquor laws as opposed to alcohol-related crimes.

  Information is given in the table:

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences under the intoxicating liquor laws by age 1991 to 1995

  England and Wales

  Offence description/age

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Drunkenness, simple

  Under 18

  69

  37

  19

  35

  39

  All ages

  4,503

  3,663

  2,795

  3,349

  3,061

  Drunkenness, with aggravation

  Under 18

  969

  798

  626

  819

  1,034

  All ages

  30,580

  25,893

  21,003

  22,247

  22,153

  Offences by licensed persons etc.

  Under 18

  4

  2

  2

  1

  —

  All ages

  1,008

  863

  686

  516

  629

  Other offences against intoxicating liquor laws

  Under 18

  103

  30

  14

  24

  17

  All ages

  1,106

  843

  558

  446

  383

  Closed Circuit Television Schemes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost per crime averted of the five most expensive closed circuit television schemes installed since 1992; and if he will list these. [4488]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in(a) staff and (b) costs of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the past five years. [4094]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is summarised in the table:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Average number of staff in post

  381

  386

  414

  458

  466

  Total cost of administration (£ million)

  13.1

  14.2

  17.3

  17.8

  19.3

  Compensation paid (£ million)

  143.7

  152.2

  165.1

  175.4

  179.0

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions, on application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, victims have been paid before a criminal act has been established in the courts in each of the past five years; and what proportion these payments represent of the overall payments made by the board. [4095]

  Mr. Maclean
  The data requested are not available. The compensation arrangements for victims of crimes of violence, whether under the common law damages scheme or the tariff-based one which superseded it on 1 April 1996, do not require the act of violence to have been established in a court of law. Many assailants are unidentified or otherwise untraced. Where, however, a trial is pending, it may be necessary for the final assessment of a claim to be delayed until the outcome of the trial is known, since the proceedings may raise issues of eligibility.

  Drug Traffickers
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums of money have been recovered from drug traffickers since 1 January; and what proportion of this amount is ear-marked for anti-drug abuse projects. [3898]

  Mr. Maclean
  No figures are yet available for 1996. The latest available figures show that, in the last financial year—1995–96—£5,343,241.63 was recovered from convicted drug traffickers. Under present accounting arrangements, all confiscated money is paid directly into the Consolidated Fund, from which Government expenditure generally, including substantial funding for drug-related work, is financed. In addition, sums realised from the enforcement of overseas confiscation orders, asset shares and gifts received as a result of co-operation with other countries are specifically ear-marked for
  619
  spending on anti-drug projects through the seized assets fund, and £168,000 has been made available in this way for spending in 1996–97.

  Prison Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent audit of the performance of the Prison Service against its key performance indicators for each six-month period of 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if he will make a statement about the accuracy of the information relating to the indicators. [2941]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service's performance against its key performance indicators—KPIs—for 1996–97 and previous years were published in its corporate plan 1996 to 1999, and I understand that the Director General has written to you with details of performance in the first six months of 1996–97.

  I am satisfied that the overall quality of the KPI data is good. As you know, the definition of the KPIs is agreed with Ministers, and the Prison Service has detailed instructions setting out how the data are to be collected. The Prison Service's own standards audit team is currently auditing data collection for KPIs in individual establishments. Preliminary results confirm that overall quality is good, while suggesting ways in which data definitions could be further tightened so as to improve quality further.

  It is important that there is independent validation of the Prison Service's data, and the Home Office internal audit unit is about to commence an audit which will be external to the agency.

  Crime Prevention
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet local authority representatives to discuss crime prevention; and if he will make a statement. [4826]

  Mr. Maclean
  None, but officials of the crime prevention agency are in regular contact with local authority representatives.

  Police Dogs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much compensation each police force in England and Wales has paid to members of the public following complaints about the use of police dogs in each year since 1985; [3621]

  (2) how many complaints the Police Complaints Authority has received about the use of police dogs in each police force in each year since 1985; [3535]

  (3) how many complaints each police force in England and Wales has received concerning the use of police dogs in each year since 1985; [3534]

  (4) how many times each police force in England and Wales has paid compensation to members of the public following complaints about the use of police dogs in each year since 1985. [3620]
  620
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of complaints against the police involving police dogs, or cases in which compensation is paid by police forces, is not recorded centrally.

  Sentencing and Detention
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to halve the maximum sentence for burglary and for the maximum period of detention at a youth custody establishment; and if he will make a statement. [4672]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to reduce the maximum sentence for burglary or the maximum period of detention in a young offender institution.

  Crime (Sentences) Bill
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the likely rise in the prison population as a result of changes to the parole system outlined in the Crime (Sentences) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [4675]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Crime (Sentences) Bill requires the courts to take account of the abolition of parole and the changes in early release arrangements when passing sentence, with a view to ensuring that, in general, prisoners should spend broadly the same length of time in prison as they do now.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that a practice direction is issued on completion of the Crime (Sentences) Bill on the appropriateness of sentence lengths; and if he will make a statement. [4677]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the Lord Chief Justice to determine whether to issue a practice direction.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 5 November,Official Report, column 434, and 12 November, Official Report, column 119, if he will set out the statistical difference between the number of offenders found guilty or cautioned and the number of offences ending in a conviction or caution. [4977]

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of offenders found guilty or cautioned is a count of the number of occasions on which a finding of guilt is made or a caution administered. On each occasion, an offender may be found guilty of, or cautioned for, more than one offence. For reasons of practicality and cost effectiveness, routine Home Office statistics are offender based and relate to the principal offence—generally the one attracting the highest penalty.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5083]
  621
  Mr. Howard
  The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the PFI. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is expected to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Any other commitments specific to particular projects, including those incurred by the supplier, are monitored by managers responsible for ensuring that satisfactory service is received. Contingent liabilities are reported to Parliament.

  Tote
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow the Horserace Totalisator Board to take bets on lotteries run outside the United Kingdom. [5546]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We will shortly lay an order allowing the Tote to take bets on the outcome of foreign lotteries.

  The Government are also supporting the private Member's Bill introduced in another place to allow the Tote to take fixed odds bets on non-sporting events.

  Convictions and Cautions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number of crimes ending in a court conviction in each police force area of England and Wales in the year to June; [3634]

  (2) if he will list the number of crimes ending in a caution in each police force area of England and Wales in the year to June. [3635]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 18 November 1996]: The information requested will not be available until autumn 1997.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first became aware of the difficulties of calculating remissions for convicted prisoners originally held on remand. [3825]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 November 1996]: On four occasions since 1982, the courts upheld the Prison Service's approach to the complex sentence calculations required by section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

  The Prison Service proposed in July 1995 that work be undertaken to develop a simpler system of sentence calculation. That work led to the new arrangements for determining the effect on release dates of time spent on remand contained in the Crime (Sentences) Bill. This provides that in all cases the judge will determine, when passing sentence, how much remand time will count against the sentence.

  Crime (Clear-up Rate)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of crimes cleared up by the police in each police force area of England and Wales in the year to June. [3636]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: Statistics on clear-ups are published only on a calendar year basis. The latest available data relate to 1995 and were given in the reply to the hon. Member on 12 November, Official Report column 199.

  Knives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to adopt a knife code along the lines of that adopted in Coventry; [4106]

  (2) What discussions he has had with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the introduction of a knife code. [4107]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 18 November 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend has given his full support to the voluntary knife code adopted by retailers in Coventry, and would support its introduction elsewhere. My right hon. and learned Friend has not discussed the code with the hon. Member for Blackburn.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the extent to which crimes involving knives has fallen in Coventry since the knife code was introduced in the City. [4108]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving the use of knives were committed(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands in each year since 1990; and what was the annual percentage change. [4105]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: For crimes recorded by the police, the information is not available centrally. The best estimate from the 1996 British crime survey is that, in 1995, there were about 160,000 incidents of wounding and robbery in which the offenders had—but did not necessarily use—a knife. Information for previous years covered by the survey—1992 and 1994—cannot reliably be compared.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library(a) the raw data used to produce the first chart presented on page 25 of "Digest 3: Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales" and (b) similar statistics with percentages for (i) 1995 and (ii) 1981. [4770]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: Information used to produce the first chart on page 25 of Digest 3 is presented in the table below. Information for 1995 and 1981 is not available in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  623

  Total numbers1

  Percentage of offences committed

  Offences committed

  11,566·7

  100

  Offences reported

  5,457·6

  47

  Offences recorded

  3,089·6

  27

  Offences cleared up

  571·4

  4·9

  Offences resulting in a caution or conviction

  310·3

  2·7

  Offences resulting in a conviction

  225·9

  2·0

  1 Covers criminal damage; theft of a motor vehicle; theft from a motor vehicle (including attempts); bicycle theft; domestic burglary; wounding; robbery; theft from a person.

  State Opening of Parliament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the police participation in the state opening of Parliament. [4691]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in his reply to the hon. Member on 11 November Official Report, column 32, any additional costs of police staff who took part in the ceremony are not separately costed.

  Sexual Offences (Prosecution)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into operation. [4795]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: Amendments to section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were implemented on 3 November 1994.

  Information for prosecutions completed in 1995 is given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences under Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  England and Wales, 1995

  Offence descriptions

  Prosecutions

  Buggery or attempted buggery

  By a male of a male under 16

  48

  By a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 17

  1

  By a male aged 18-20 with a male aged 16 or 17

  -

  By a male aged 16 or 17 with a male aged 16 or over

  -

  By a male not included above

  7

  By a male with a female under 16

  25

  By a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 17

  2

  By a male aged 18-20 with a female aged 16 or 17

  -

  By a male aged 16 or 17 with a female aged 16 or over

  -

  By a male with a female not included above

  19

  With an animal

  3

  West Yorkshire Police Force
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff were employed by the West Yorkshire police force in each year since 1979 to date. [4803]
  624
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: The information is as follows:

  As at March

  Police strength

  Civilian strength

  19791

  4,739

  1,191

  1980

  4,805

  1,199

  1981

  5,084

  1,270

  1982

  5,147

  1,305

  1983

  5,145

  1,238

  1984

  5,109

  1,229

  1985

  4,991

  1,253

  1986

  5,145

  1,275

  1987

  5,142

  1,360

  1988

  5,184

  1,458

  1989

  5,278

  1,613

  1990

  5,260

  1,743

  1991

  5,268

  1,875

  1992

  5,087

  1,821

  1993

  5,037

  1,867

  1994

  5,046

  1,912

  1995

  5,050

  1,965

  1996

  5,142

  2,037

  1As at May.

  Criminal Cases Review Committee
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information was provided by the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Committee to the selection committee responsible for his appointment in respect of his membership of the freemasons; and if this was regarded by the committee as a personal matter which might cause public embarrassment. [4912]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 19 November 1996]: None. In making its recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend, the selection committee was guided by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. Sir Frederick was an outstanding candidate.

  Police Assistance
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning insurance cover for special constables, lay visitors and other volunteers providing assistance to the police. [4649]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: Representations have been received from the Lake District Search and Mountain Rescue Association on behalf of the Mountain Rescue Council, and from a small number of right hon. and hon. Members.

  Prisons
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the number of places for prisoners in HM prisons in each of the years 1996 to 2006. [52]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Chris Davies, dated 20 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of places for prisoners in each of the years 1996 to 2006.

  625
  Accommodation is defined as Planning CNA in use, which excludes places taken out of use for refurbishment and simple sanitation projects, and a small operating margin. It represents the total number of uncrowded places estimated to be available in the estate. It is not the operational capacity, which is the number of prisoners the estate can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of regimes and which allows for overcrowding. At the end of October 1996 Operational Capacity was 58,977 compared to a total prison population of 57,587.
  The latest available accommodation estimate includes new prisons at Fazakerley, Bridgend, and the proposed new prison at Agecroft as well as the re-built Lowdham Grange, all of which will be constructed under the private finance initiative. Also included is the increase in capacity to meet the recent rise in the prison population.
  626
  Over the longer term, further permanent measures will be required to hold the projected prison population. The size of the building programme and funding requirements are under discussion in the current Public Expenditure Round.
  The forecast also excludes additional places to be built as set out in the White Paper to hold the increase in the prison population resulting from the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
  The forecast is shown below.

  Years

  Accommodation

  1995–96

  48,350

  1996–97

  51,450

  1997–98

  54,800

  1998–99

  57,100

  1999–00

  58,550

  2000–01 to 2005–06

  58,550 in each year

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

Lord Saatchi
Maurice Saatchi, Esquire, having been created Baron Saatchi, of Staplefield in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Tebbit and the Baroness Hogg.
Lord Tweedsmuir Lord Tweedsmuir—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Earl of Denbigh The Earl of Denbigh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen I am to visit Strasbourg on Monday, 25th November. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence on that day.

Illegal Drugs Problem: Cost
2.50 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate, to the nearest £100 million, of the total amount of resources under their control and that of local government which is absorbed by all aspects of the problem of illegal drugs.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in addition to the estimated government annual expenditure of over £500 million devoted to tackling drug misuse, there are other costs which result from the problem. These include costs associated with unemployment, housing and childcare, as well as the cost of dealing with other forms of crime linked with drug misuse which cannot easily be estimated with any kind of accuracy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the effort that she has made to put together information which is truly shocking. I ask this Question with absolutely no tone of criticism. I very much hope that she will do what she can to initiate some effective international action. These awful figures must be reflected in the cost that is borne by other nations as well.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what is truly shocking is the problem of drugs itself. It is very important that the
1256
Government leave no stone unturned in tackling this problem. That is why we have a strategy for tackling drugs misuse which includes treatment and rehabilitation programmes; prevention and education; deterrence and control; police, Customs and enforcement; and, as my noble friend just said, the importance of international action, too.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, in view of the enormous size of the problem, will the Minister assure the House that there is effective co-operation between the different departments involved and that there is no sense, as it were, of territorial ownership and rivalry between different ministries? In view of the size of the problem, would it not be best to have one department in overall charge of the battle against drugs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have a very positive answer to that point. The Lord President of the Council chairs a Cabinet sub-committee which represents all the relevant departments. It is important that, in developing policy, it considers the part that it needs to play in developing drug strategies. More important, and at a more practical level, is the development of drug action teams which are collaborative at a local level; that is, all the professionals from health services, the police, prisons, local authorities and the community coming together corporately in effective collaboration at local level, while the Cabinet sub-committee works at a national level across departments and exchanges intelligence and information internationally.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister state what proportion of the £500 million relates, first, to soft drugs and, secondly, to hard drugs?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I am unable to answer that question. All the programmes that are in place tackle the whole issue of drugs. It is very important that the taking of drugs, whether soft or hard, is dealt with as part of an overall drugs problem. There is no breaking down of the moneys in that way. The figures are broken down in relation to treatment, rehabilitation and education programmes, international spending etc., but not as between hard and soft drugs.

Immigration Act Powers: Use of Bail
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what basis they judge the effectiveness of the bail system as a safeguard against improper use of detention powers under the Immigration Act.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, detention is used very sparingly but must be available for people who would otherwise not comply with their admission conditions. Effective safeguards are provided through review at senior levels in the Immigration Service, bail and, where appropriate, review by the courts.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she remember that when this House debated the asylum Bill in the summer she gave repeated assurances that the use of bail was an effective remedy against the abuse of powers by officials who detained people under administrative procedures? Can she reconcile those assurances with the answer she gave to a Parliamentary Question a couple of years ago, when the Government admitted that they had no information at all as to whether bail was working in the case of persons detained under Immigration Act powers? Was that not misleading?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have certainly not misled the House on this issue. If the noble Lord is comparing remarks made during the course of the Bill's passage through this House which were based on updated and current information with an Answer given two years previously when information was perhaps not available and the database not so up to date, I have to ask him to accept my more current information given to him during the course of debate on the Bill. I give him the reassurance now that we believe that the system is working effectively and that the safeguards that are in place are sufficient.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Answer to the Parliamentary Question is dated 6th November this year. In the light of that, will the Minister reconsider her reply?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in his supplementary question the noble Lord said, "a couple of years ago", and I answered in that light. If the noble Lord meant a couple of weeks ago, the answer is that the system is used sparingly. It is an effective use: keeping people in custody or allowing them out on bail and, after proper consideration allowing them an appeal. We believe that the safeguards are in place and are sufficient.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that it does not appear, certainly to me, that there is any essential inconsistency at all; and that judicial discretion as to whether or not bail is granted is properly exercised and has not been criticised so far as I know?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right. If the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes that there is an inconsistency and that there has been a breach of procedures, we should be pleased to hear about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not heard any accusation that there has been a breach of procedures. However, is it not the case that the Minister replied to my noble friend only two weeks ago that she could not answer the question as to how many bail applications were successful and how many of those detained who applied for release were asylum seekers? Surely that is not information that could be provided only at disproportionate cost; it is fundamental information which is required by Parliament in order to understand the situation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing inconsistent about that. If the noble Lord asks for the
1258
number of applications for bail that are successful, they are very many indeed. It would be disproportionate to go back into the accounts. What is important is not to spend time and a great deal of money and effort retrieving that information, but the number of people detained in custody who fail to receive bail; namely, 1 per cent. of all applications. If the noble Lord is interested, I can give him the figures. As of 1st October this year, 864 people were detained. Of those detained, 82 per cent. spend less than six months in detention; some 28 per cent. spend less than one month in detention; only 34 of the 864 spend more than one year in detention.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not still the fact that Britain has the highest proportion of asylum seekers in close detention of any country in Europe? Will the Minister agree that there is a case for looking at non-detention lodging houses where basic facilities could be provided, rather than the present combination of detention and throwing asylum seekers on the mercy of local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know following our long and arduous discussions during the course of the Bill, this country has a very high level of asylum seekers. We on these Benches have done what we can to minimise the number of abuses in the system. Happily, those reforms are now working, without the support of noble Lords opposite.

Minicabs: Regulation
2.59 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so when, they intend to introduce regulations covering the ownership and use of vehicles as minicabs.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, minicabs outside London are already regulated in a similar fashion to taxis. The Government are committed to introducing the necessary primary legislation for minicab licensing in London when parliamentary time permits.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which will go some way towards alleviating the disappointment felt by many taxi and hire car organisations and people that the foreshadowed legislation was not in the Queen's Speech. Does my noble friend agree that compared with the approximately 16,000 black cabs in London, famously admired the world over for their reliability and knowledge, the 70,000 minicabs now operating pose a potential threat to personal and public safety? Does he agree that there is no time to be lost in regulating the situation?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I entirely understand the concern felt by my noble friend. I emphasise once again that the Government's

1259
commitment to legislate remains unchanged. I also agree with my noble friend that the black cabs in London do a marvellous job and help many noble Lords home.
However, we must not forget that minicabs provide a valuable service to the people of London. Many thousands of journeys are made every day without difficulty. I believe that that fact needs to be acknowledged, even though the Government accept the need for regulation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a somewhat unsatisfactory response to a highly relevant and important Question? The black cab taxi drivers, rightly acknowledged by the noble Earl to be the finest in the world, feel themselves under great stress. The more dubious variety of minicabs are not competing fairly, they undercut savagely, yet they do not carry the overheads that the black cab taxi drivers are compelled by law to adopt.
Is it not true that, after so much consultation and discussion, an issue which would prove to be relatively uncontentious politically should be a matter of grave and immediate concern? The Government should already have legislated.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thought I had made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it is our intention to legislate as soon as parliamentary time permits—after the next election. We are committed to legislating on the issue. We envisage a licensing system for operators, drivers and cabs.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend take pains to erase from his brief that awful phrase "when parliamentary time permits"? It was designed by people other than himself in order to discourage. In that alone, it is successful.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I shall take note of what my noble friend said.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, the Minister said that he would be willing to consider future legislation to bring minicabs under control. I do not know whether it would be helpful if that legislation could be discussed in collaboration with black cab organisations so that we could have a more balanced view.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Earl makes a good point. Yes, I am sure that all interested parties will be consulted in the matter.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does not the chief problem with minicabs lie with insurance? It would be dealt with satisfactorily if minicab drivers' credentials in terms of insurance were examined.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as to future legislation, licensing of minicabs outside London would ensure that the drivers are correctly licensed, that the
1260
cars are in a fit condition with the appropriate MOT certificate, if required, and that they are properly insured for the purpose.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that such rules as exist to control the worst practices of minicabs are being properly enforced? If he is, then most people outside this House certainly are not.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, many licensed minicab drivers outside London do a worthwhile job. There have been problems in the past with plying for hire by minicab drivers, as well as touting. That is one of the reasons why under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 touting for hire is illegal. That legislation has helped to reduce the problem at London mainline stations. We are aware that the problem still exists, but prosecutions have taken place and the situation at mainline stations has improved.

Israel: Arms Sales
3.5 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are holding discussions on arms sales with the new Israeli Government.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, our defence links with Israel are limited, but progress in the Middle East peace process over the last few years has allowed the development of contacts of the kind we would expect to have with any friendly country.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the Minister recall Mr. Rifkind's recent statement urging the Israeli Government, in the most detailed and serious terms, not to stall the peace process? The statement urged them in particular to stop the building of settlements on the West Bank which Mr. Rifkind described as illegal and an obstacle to peace. If it is persisted in, it seems likely to lead to an explosion of violence in Palestine. Is the Minister aware that since Mr. Rifkind said that, there has been no change in the policies of the Israeli Government? Not only that, but they have just announced a massive settlement building plan in the West Bank. In those circumstances, is this the right time to invite an Israeli minister to London to promote the sale of British arms to Israel?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am aware of what the Foreign Secretary said when he visited Israel and the occupied territories on 3rd November. He also visited Hebron. We shall maintain a firm line on the key issues, the principal one including settlements.
The reference to inviting the Israeli Defence Minister here is not accurate. He is here on a routine private visit. He is meeting the Foreign Secretary shortly and Mr. Rifkind will ask for an update on the interim agreement implementation, including Hebron redeployment. He will also raise reports of settlement

1261
expansion and the effects on aid delivery of the Israeli closure of the West Bank and Gaza. Those matters will be raised very firmly.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that even if arms sales to Israel are no longer dependent—as they were, I think rightly—on Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, the Government will continue to press the Israelis to withdraw from that part of Lebanon which they occupy in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, wherever the responsibility may lie for the difficulties with the peace process, can the noble Lord set at rest the minds of the House and the nation? Can he assure us that the stated guidelines for the sale of armaments are really the criteria and that Israel or anyone else will be judged by those guidelines and not by any hidden agenda?
Lord Chesham: Absolutely, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if we were less dependent upon arms sales for our economic welfare, it would be possible for the Government to be more discriminating?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not really accept that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Israeli Defence Minister's meeting with the Foreign Secretary and what would be the agenda. He did not say that he would also be discussing the promotion of British arms.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, he will not be discussing the promotion of British arms with the Foreign Secretary. I believe that he will also see the Secretary of State for Defence who will discuss bilateral defence relations and regional security questions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case, will the Secretary of State for Defence be trying to promote British arms? If so, will he also be promoting the sales of British arms to the Palestinians?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is the Government's policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. Exporters need a licence from the Government for the sale of defence equipment. Applications are considered on a case by case basis which take into account, inter alia, the human rights record of the purchasing country.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law on obscene publications and obscene performances of plays. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Pensions: Future Problems in Europe
3.10 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne rose to call attention to the Federal Trust's publication The Pension Time Bomb in Europe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may perhaps seem somewhat egocentric that I should draw attention to a publication written by myself. In fact, it had been my intention to discuss the Select Committee report of the other place on pensions in Europe. But as the other place has not yet debated it, I understand that it would be out of order for me to do so. Although the publication to which I draw attention is written by myself, it was the result of a very distinguished international working party and I was merely the rapporteur.
The problem about pensions which most European countries face is very serious. It derives from three factors. The first is a falling birth rate. The birth rates in Italy and Spain have now fallen to something like half the replacement rates. Assuming that there are three generations per century, it would mean that within 200 years in Italy there would be only one baby born for every 64 that are born today. That trend will not continue. Nevertheless, it raises a serious problem while it is there.
The second problem is one of much greater longevity. In this House we are familiar with some of the evidence of longevity, although I add at once that, having previously had experience elsewhere, I am glad to say that greater age does not mean that the debates in this House are any less worth while than those in the much younger other place. But the evidence of the trend is quite dramatic. Just about a year ago a recent article by a Dutch expert in the Financiele Dagblad projected that babies—indeed not just Dutch babies—born in the year 2010 (which is not so far away) could expect to live 115 years.
The third aspect of the problem is that most countries in the European Union base their pensions on the pay-as-you-go system, whereby, as your Lordships know well, existing contributors pay for existing pensioners. Combining that with demographic factors, one finds the uncomfortable situation that an ever shrinking workforce is paying for an ever larger pensioner population. What is more, as people are living so much longer, pensioners will also be very much more expensive. Clearly there is a problem. In the publication to which I have drawn attention, the matter was raised nearly two years ago.
Following the Select Committee report, certain editors suddenly discovered the problem and some alarmists have used it as another stick with which to beat the concept of monetary union. It means, they say, that other countries will incur great debts in the future—they will incur future obligations that they will be unable to meet—and we shall have to bail them out; our pensions will suffer and we shall have to pay extra taxes to pay for their profligacy. To many people, the European monetary union is somewhat remote. But, if one starts to say that it is something which will prejudice our pensions or will mean that we shall all have to pay higher taxes, it could lead to demonstrations in the streets.
There is only one thing wrong with that alarmist view. It is based on an analysis which is wholly fallacious. In the first place, there is no bail-out allowed under the very strict provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. I am very glad that the Prime Minister pointed that out as soon as the Select Committee report appeared. The terms are quite clear: no bail-out under Article 104(b). What is more, the limit on deficit of 3 per cent. and 60 per cent. on debt will continue to apply after monetary union starts.
There seems to be an assumption on the part of some people that the moment that nations have qualified to become members of the monetary union they will immediately relax and profligacy will prevail. I see no reason to suppose that those who are members of the union will not wish to see it work. And in any event, for reinforcement and as a kind of double safeguard, there has been a move towards a stability pact, which I am very glad to say Her Majesty's Government strongly support. The details have not yet been finally settled. Severe penalties have been agreed but whether they should be automatic or applied case by case has not yet been agreed. But that pact is there to ensure that member states of the Union will not incur enormous and unjustified debts. So that is the first fallacy. They assume that there can be a bail-out but there can be no bail-out.
The second fallacy is to treat the hidden debts that flow from pension obligations like the conventional debt within the national accounts. Those hidden debts are theoretical debts and everyone knows that they are debts that will not be paid. Governments consistently break their obligations to pensioners. It is not some continental vice; we do it ourselves. We did so dramatically in 1981 when we changed the basis on which pensions were uprated from being uprated with earnings to uprating in accordance with prices. Personally, I think that that was a wise move, although it should have been followed by other provisions to prevent poverty in old age, because we too face a major problem, although it is a very different problem. We too need dramatic reform but it is reform to ensure that all our population can have decent pensions and that we do not condemn one third of our pensioners to poverty.
But we too break our obligations to pensioners. We did so again in the Pensions Act last year, when again the benefits payable to those who stay in SERPS were decreased. It is happening on the Continent as well. But we too have other hidden liabilities that do not appear
1264
in the national accounts. The decommissioning of power stations will impose very considerable obligations on us in the future. We do not know what they are and so they do not appear in the national accounts. We are building up a number of unaccounted for liabilities under the private finance initiative. Others will not have to pay for those debts any more than we shall have to pay for theirs.
The third fallacy is that the alarmists seem blissfully unaware of what is being done in other countries. In Germany, France and Italy there has been a spate of reforms in recent years—several since the Federal Trust's publication was issued—which have increased contributions, lowered benefits and in many cases increased the official retirement age.
Some people reply that there were protests; and of course there were protests. When governments introduce unpopular measures, there are protests. It did not stop reforms being introduced or will not stop other reforms taking place. I hate to suggest that one should advise foreign governments, but it seems to me that they will have to do more and several of the reforms they have already announced will have to be accelerated. But let us not pretend that nothing is being done and that those hidden liabilities are, as it were, fixed in tablets of stone and are unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians.
The fourth fallacy is that the alarmists completely ignore the very considerable move which is taking place on the Continent towards equity funding. In France there has recently been introduced a Bill which greatly encourages the private provision of pensions and indeed goes so far as to suggest that those private funds must be 60 per cent. invested in equities. That is not a matter of which the committee took any account.
There are the very impressive Italian reforms. I do not know whether the committee ever looked at the Amato reforms or the Dini reforms, which have produced what is likely in the long term to be a very viable mixed system of combined state pensions and private pensions. The Italians have made considerable strides in promoting private pensions and many people expect an explosion of private pension funding in Italy in due course.
In the Netherlands the public servants' pension fund—the ABP—has always been funded; but now it is investing in equities. Previously the total investment allowed into equities and property was only 5 per cent. In the last year since it was privatised it has risen to 30 per cent. Dutch pension funds in general are investing to a much greater extent in equities.
An influential report was published recently by the European Federation for Retirement Provision, which has been well received and is likely to promote the move towards private pensions. That report projects the impact there is likely to be on the provision of private capital in Europe. It assumes that by the year 2020—a questionable assumption but not totally unrealistic—around 25 per cent. of previous earnings will be replaced by privately funded equities operating in partnership with the state funds. It also assumes that the coverage of the second pillar—the occupation pillar—will be

1265
60 per cent. of the working population. That again is not unrealistic because the second pillar in France is 100 per cent. and in the Netherlands about 85 per cent.
On those projections the total pension fund assets would amount to something like 60 per cent. of GDP, which one should note is considerably less than the over 80 per cent. which pension fund assets now constitute as a proportion of GDP in the United Kingdom. If those projections are right, by the year 2020 pension fund assets would amount to something in the nature of 10,000 billion ecus, or double the amount of pension fund assets in the United States at the present time.
We are seeing a move which, though it may be slower than projected, will have a dramatic effect on the liquidity of capital markets in Europe and on the capital available for industry in Europe. It is enormously encouraging for industry in Europe and should be viewed as encouraging and hopeful for Britain because of the exceptional expertise which we have in pension fund management.
If one sums up the situation, what do we find? I shall try to state the position with every attempt at objectivity and moderation. In the words of an eminent Cambridge economics professor, one of the best economists of our time, William Buiter: the alarmists have shown themselves to be politically naïve and economically illiterate. I would add that they have also shown a total, if not wilful, disregard for what is actually happening to pensions in Europe. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on his good fortune in the ballot and also on the important and interesting topic that he chose for debate this afternoon. I am sure we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I can assure her that I shall not keep her in suspense for long because I do not intend to make a long speech.
I must declare three interests in British pensions. I am lucky enough to be in receipt of a national insurance pension, a war pension and also a parliamentary pension—a fortunate position in which to be.
I agree with the analysis in the pamphlet referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and will now read one sentence from that analysis. It appears on page 1 of the report:
"without radical changes, maintaining levels of benefits provided by Pay-As-You-Go schemes in line with present expectations will impose a burden on future generations of taxpayers which is likely to prove unacceptable, will worsen the competitiveness of industry and will harm the prospect for employment and for the economy as a whole".
That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. But as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, the problem is much greater on the Continent than it is here. Most of their pension schemes are on a pay-as-you-go basis and are therefore unfunded. As the noble Lord also said, changes are afoot in many of the countries in Europe. They have now realised that the burden is rapidly becoming insupportable and have also recognised how extremely unpopular moves to clear the rapid growth in
1266
the pensions debt are; the French and the Germans in particular discovered that with the strikes and civil unrest which have taken place. A great deal of determination will be required therefore before that mounting pension debt is dealt with satisfactorily.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did not dwell a little more on that, both in the pamphlet and today, and give a little more credit to the British scheme with regard to the development of funded occupational pension schemes and personal pensions. Thanks to the Government's financial incentives and other encouragement, we in this country now have large and growing pension savings which provide valuable seedcorn for future prosperity. The total value of those pension investments is now no less than £600 billion. That is more than all our EU partners put together. As a consequence of that substantial development, whereas in 1979 43 per cent. of people retiring had an occupational pension, the figure is now 66 per cent. and rising.
As a further consequence of that, since 1979 pensioners' incomes on average rose much more quickly than for the population as a whole. Admittedly, that does not apply to all pensioners, but it applies to a growing proportion of the population. It is a real success story of which our country can be justly proud. Our present position in the European Union can be illustrated in another way. A recent OECD study calculated that, given certain assumptions, the net value of unfunded public pension schemes is 19 per cent. of GDP in the United Kingdom, whereas in France it is 89 per cent., in Italy it is 113 per cent., and in Germany it is 139 per cent. Whether one takes those figures or any other figures that are available, I suggest to noble Lords who favour the social chapter that those figures need serious pondering.
There is no doubt that in most of the countries of our partners in the EU the employers experience much higher costs over and above pay than is the case in this country. Inevitably, those higher costs are bound to be a drag on their economies and they are bound to exaggerate the problems of unemployment. One of the benefits of being able to keep our costs down is that we are a magnet for inward investment because those who are investing realise that our costs over and above pay are substantially less than those of most of our EU partners.
Therefore, the healthier position in this country than for most of our EU partners does not mean that we have nothing to worry about. As my noble friend the Minister will no doubt remind us, the social security budget is now £90 billion a year of which pensions are by far the biggest item. So it is still appropriate that we should ask ourselves whether we can afford it. Are we handing on to the next generation a bill which will be too big a burden for it? To their great credit, the Government have scaled down the rate of increase in the pension bill by introducing economies and by focusing resources more directly on those most in need. These reforms were not popular, but the search for economies must go on. I remind the House in passing that I do not believe that

1267
any of these reforms received support from the Opposition parties; they were carried out entirely by the Government.
Finally, I turn to the very interesting report of the Social Security Select Committee of another place. Its report was published on 23rd October of this year and is entitled, Unfunded Pension Liabilities in the European Union. It is a valuable report, as one would expect, because the committee is chaired by that well-respected and experienced MP, Mr. Frank Field.
There have been press reports which have suggested that the Select Committee report stated that the British taxpayer will have to find huge sums of money to bail out European pension debts. The Government have firmly denied that and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to repeat that denial when he comes to wind up. However, as I understand it, the Select Committee report suggested that governments on the Continent, with their big pension liabilities, may be tempted to meet their pension debts by printing money, which could have an effect on inflation and interest rates which in turn could affect the United Kingdom economy. This is a worrying assumption if it is correct. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he winds up the debate.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for introducing this debate. I promise not to regard it as a precedent: I shall not be demanding that my own works on macro-economic policy be debated in your Lordships' House in the near future.
I agree with much of what is in the tract, but there are areas about which I strongly disagree, as I shall make clear. This is an area which is worthy of debate. Whether one agrees or disagrees, we are a long way from any final decision or interpretation.
I find it odd, in a world in which the gross domestic product, productivity and the expectation of life are all rising—all of which I regard as boons—that people seem to contrive the notion that we have a crisis here and that we are convincing ourselves that somehow we were all better off when we were poorer and not living as long. I regard that as quite absurd. I agree that there are problems, but I do not for one moment accept that they cannot be solved. In so far as we have a crisis it will be one that we create for ourselves. That is the whole of my position, although I shall elaborate on it in due course.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, about EMU. The point about the debt provisions at Maastricht and of EMU mean that we cannot have fiscal and monetary profligacy, but I thought that we were all agreed that we did not want that anyway—in other words, that cannot be a point of controversy and contention. I also agree with the noble Lord that we need a stability pact, which is our method of controlling the position in the short term. However, my view of the proposals being put forward by Herr Waigil are that they are quite unsatisfactory. If I were asked to assess them
1268
I would say that he is constructing an instability pact and not one which I hope Her Majesty's Government would sign. I could devise a more suitable formula that would get us out of those problems.
I wish to be at least partly optimistic. Perhaps I may immediately put the Minister on the spot. My advisers tell me that the Government Actuary has made a forecast of the national contribution rate needed to finance state pensions over the next 50 years. He has calculated that it will be exactly the same as it is at the present day, and once the baby boom is over it will fall. Therefore, for those who believe that there is some financing problem here, the Government Actuary says that they are wrong.
Perhaps I may now make a few points which I believe are obvious. They are more a matter of arithmetic than economics. If the ratio of old people to the working population rises and nothing else happens, average incomes must fall. That is purely a question of arithmetic. If those in work demand the same incomes as they would otherwise get, a fortiori the incomes of retired people must fall. Since retired people were overwhelmingly workers once, another way of putting this point is to say that the individual, in maintaining his or her spending while in work, will then be poorer in retirement. Again, that is arithmetic and has nothing to do with policy or anything else. That is true and it is a point that is always missed. I believe that it was missed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. It is true whether one is discussing a pay-as-you-go scheme or a savings scheme in any other form. If the given cake is there to be divided and if some people get what they were expecting to receive and there are more other people, they (the latter) will get less. The real error made—including by some of my honourable friends in another place—is to somehow believe that the scheme can get away from the arithmetic, but it cannot.
Since state pension schemes are at least partly redistributive towards the poor, if we maintain the incomes of those who work then we shall be clearly disadvantaging the most poor people in our society. Again, that is a matter of arithmetic and I am not yet saying anything about economics. Therefore it follows—and I believe that everyone takes this view—that even those who advocate the so-called funded savings scheme still advocate some state subsidy for the poor. The overwhelming point is that if workers insist that they get what they expect notwithstanding, then someone else must pay the price.
Another way of putting this matter much more positively is to note that if the potential population of old people rises then that can be offset by people working longer. Most economists would argue that if we are to live an extra number of years, one might take some of those years as leisure and others in doing extra work. That would be a standard proposition of economics. Alternatively, if one does not want to do that, then somehow we have to raise the productivity of the working population in order to deal with the dependency ratio.
Clearly then, the problem before us has nothing to do with schemes but with factors such as productivity and how long we work. I believe—and some economists

1269
would argue—that if labour becomes scarcer then the market system will work to raise productivity. That is another way of putting the matter. We shall economise on a scarce asset and therefore we can be optimistic about that.
There is also the point that whether we have a savings scheme or a minimum state scheme, the level of private savings will rise and that will again be the way in which the system works. Assuming—and this is where those of us who call ourselves Keynesian economists differ from others—that the savings are invested in real assets, then our output will be that much higher. Most of us argue that that cannot be assumed and that we have to make sure that it happens. Either way, if the system is allowed to work—if it can be encouraged to work—there are good grounds for saying that, irrespective of whether we have a save-as-you-go scheme or a pay-as-you-go scheme, the economy will be able to deal with the problem.
In passing, I should say that I agree that this country should raise its propensity to save. If a savings scheme could do that, I would be wholly in favour of it. We have one of the lowest propensities to save in the industrialised world and we need to do something about that.
I am not sure whether I have yet used the expression "full employment", but I have to point out that if we operate a system in which the workers are out of work, we have created two major benefits problems for ourselves. One is that when people are out of work we pay them benefit; the other is that because they are not earning, they cannot save in order not to be a burden when they retire. There are thus two consequences of having a policy of less than full employment. There are social security problems in the short term, generating further social security problems in the long term. One of the reasons that some of us say that full employment is central to all economic policy is that it helps us to solve such problems.
In commenting briefly on the question of savings schemes for pensions, I must remind your Lordships—I am sure that you are no different from me—that we must bear in mind what I call the myopia, even the irrationality, of people when they are young. I confess to such shortsightedness myself. When I started out as an assistant lecturer in economics I resented paying the compulsory contribution for my eventual retirement because it was 40-odd years away. It was hard to live on one's income then, but time goes by and eventually one reaches retirement age. I had one of my last retirement parties this week and I now have a fully funded index-linked retirement pension—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston: My Lords, the point that I am making is simply that we cannot rely on individual free choice in the area of pensions provision. There has to be some compulsion—not for the sake of having a nanny state, but simply because one forgets that time goes by. In my view, that also means that because people are myopic
1270
and irrational the state cannot duck out of its responsibilities. It cannot simply say that people can be left to fend for themselves.
I do not have the time to develop the other problems of private savings schemes, but with any luck we may return to the matter in the future when I can point out other difficulties. Perhaps I may say now, however, that in my view the solution is that the state should provide a basic pension, as it does now, and that people should be encouraged—in my view they should be more than encouraged; they should be made—to have their own pension scheme as well. In other words, I am saying—I know that this is extremely tedious of me—that taking a balanced approach, which is based not on dogma but on common sense, is the way to make some progress.
I turn finally to the minimum level of the state pension. I remind noble Lords that we must do this in dynamic terms. One must never forget that the old, by definition, were young—but people do forget that. They also forget when they are young that they will grow old. When workers tell me how revolting they find the Conservative Government for breaking the wage link with pensions and opting only for a price link, I ask them, "How did you vote when you were in work? Did you vote for tax cuts and a higher disposable income?" When they say that they did, I say, "Well then, you established the criteria by which your current pension is being determined". That may sound cynical, but it is not meant to. It is a fact that people have to face harsh realities. If you choose to say, "I no longer want a large pension for current pensioners", you are voting for a smaller pension when you become a pensioner.
In my view, those of us who have a position in your Lordships' House or in society in general have a duty 'to tell people that they must choose and that they will get what they have chosen. Therefore, I do not entirely blame noble Lords opposite and their party for the fact that pensions are too low; I blame the people who voted for them—but it was not me.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as somebody who has earned, and does earn, his living largely in the pensions industry both here and in the United States.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for raising this issue. Although it could be a wide issue as it brings into question the whole way in which we approach the welfare state at this time, I was slightly surprised and disappointed that the noble Lord took a somewhat uncharacteristically narrow view.
It is difficult to get across to the Europhiles that people who disagree with them are not Europhobes and that the future of the entire world does not depend on whether we do or do not enter economic and monetary union. There is a massive imbalance between some continental national pensions liabilities and our own, and that raises some serious problems. Our problem is less serious but fundamental changes need to be made. It is worrying that people dismiss pensions liabilities as not being hidden debts which have to be repaid, and say that somehow or other we shall be able to cut pensions

1271
in a bookkeeping exercise. Pensions are liabilities, and the fact that they do not attract interest (as would other liabilities on the balance sheet) does not hide the fact that there is an increasing call for their repayment at a higher rate. The pensions liability is a major problem if fundamental changes are not made.
We now come to the narrow point, which is the question: if we are a member of the European Union and if the Union develops as people think it will, will we be called upon to pay part of those other liabilities which are so much larger than our own? At a time when, in order to qualify for membership of the single currency, senior finance ministers in other EU countries are fiddling the books to an extent which would put them in gaol if they were running a public company in any respectable country, and at a time when we are paying for wine lakes and grain mountains and towards the cultivation of highly carcinogenic tobacco in northern Greece at the same time as paying our contribution to the anti-smoking campaign which the European Union has quite properly established, we must face up to the major financial problem of Europe's pensions.
If one believes that any member of the European Union could stand aside and watch such pensions problems develop, it is but a fairly short step to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. It beggars belief that that would happen any more than that a serious problem in any part of any national state would be disregarded by the whole. Apart from the fact that I believe that membership of the single currency would be on a par with volunteering for the flood, as somebody who like the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, takes an objective view of the whole argument I must stress that anybody who believes that misses the point.
This is a serious issue which now affects all modern industrialised countries. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said although I suspect that I believe that the problem is more serious than he suggested. I do, however, agree that a solution exists. The first big problem is the one to which he has alluded and to which I will return. I refer to the great problem that one experiences if one tries to sell life insurance in the dreaded diseases market. It is very difficult to sell policies to those aged 25 to 30 to protect them from the effects of Alzheimer's disease in old age.
The second problem is bigger. All democratic governments have an inability to plan seriously for the long term. All of them would like to do it; many of them genuinely believe that they do. However, in reality political planning is dominated in the medium term by "News At Ten" and tomorrow morning's newspapers, and in the longer term by the date of the next general election. That is not cynicism but the reality of representative government. Right reverend Prelates and churchmen of all faiths and denominations have an easier job in saying to their flocks that although it is rough now in the distant future it will be all right. As those of us who have stood for election have learned to our cost, the electorate is not like that. It wants it yesterday and it is not really interested in what happens in 10 years' time; and this is all about what will happen
1272
in 10 years' time. It is for that reason that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for introducing this debate.
Some argue that the problem is exaggerated. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is in that camp. I believe that the political, social and economic consequences of what is, interestingly, called the pensions time bomb are potentially very serious indeed in terms of the sheer scale of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said, there will be a temptation in some quarters to say that there is a way out of it if benefits are cut. No Member of this House believes that for those who have to rely purely on the state and have no other provision for their old age pension benefits are, at their best, anything but grossly inadequate for a pleasant lifestyle. No serious commentator denies the existence of the problem. It is an actuarial certainty. It is not about the boundaries of science but about arithmetic. Nor is it a problem unique to the United Kingdom, and it is certainly not a purely European problem. The same debate is taking place in countries as diverse as Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States.
It is increasingly clear that satisfactory levels of social expenditure, particularly pension provision, cannot be funded on the existing basis. To fiddle about with the universal availability of bus passes for the over 65s—who are frequently able to buy bus companies, if they want to do so—is froth. To try to deal with the fraud that exists in the field of social benefits is an uphill task because they are so complicated. In this country we provide for 7 million people who make no private pension arrangements. At the last count, the figure for a single pension was £61 per week; for a married couple it is £98 per week. Obviously, they get other benefits as well because they have to. However, the result is that even with additional benefits one is paying for a pretty miserable end to a working life.
The brutal fact must be faced that the National Insurance scheme is an underfunded and increasingly expensive shambles. It is inadequate for the people who require pension provision and a waste of public money for those who do not. We need to sit back and take a look at the whole situation, but we do not have time to do that today. Whatever we do, it is becoming increasingly clear that, except for the very poor, people must take responsibility for a large part of the provision for their retirement years, and that can be achieved only by compulsion. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, deals with this at the end of his pamphlet. It is at that point that I take issue with the noble Lord. I read it in full:
"This kind of Europe-wide pension scheme could even be a vehicle for compulsory pension contributions if in due course any EU member felt that universalisation was desirable".
Unless there is compulsory provision for private pensions the problem can not be solved. A high proportion of people do not make adequate provision. All governments in advanced countries find it increasingly difficult to meet the massive increases in public expenditure that are required to maintain even civilised basic living standards. Unless more people make their own pension arrangements an increasingly

1273
large proportion of pensioners will face a miserable retirement of under-provision and already inadequate state benefits.
Surprisingly, compulsory pension provision may not be as unpopular as governments fear. In September of last year a poll conducted by NatWest showed that 55 per cent. of people in work believed that it was up to individuals to make provision for their own retirement. Of two options that they were given—one was increased taxation and the other was compulsory savings—48 per cent. opted for compulsory savings provided that the savings remained clearly their property. Another poll question explained the whole problem very simply and sadly. When retired people were asked when they first began to think seriously about the financial implications of retirement, 45 per cent. replied that it was when they retired. That is too late.
One comes back to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the problem of trying to sell pensions voluntarily to young people. If a young man on an average wage wants to provide a decent pension of two-thirds of his earnings at the time of retirement he will have to contribute about £200 a month from the age of 25 until the age of 65. If he delays it until he is 30, when he is still young, the monthly contribution rises by 120 per cent. to £420 per month for the same level of pension. That is the crucial reason for compulsion to get people into the scheme early enough; otherwise, there is no solution to the problem. The extent of the problem will hit us in the next 10 years or so. It is a much bigger subject than we have time to go into this evening but the solutions—and there are solutions—have to be found now.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords. I rise with trepidation, having been introduced to this House only eight days ago. I have been encouraged to do so for two reasons. First, I have been received with such warmth and kindness by so many of your Lordships. I am also fortunate in having long-standing friends from Scottish student politics both in the other place and in this House. Lest it be thought that they are all of the same political persuasion, I should say that part of the encouragement of seeing friendly faces from that time comes in this very debate from the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
The second reason that I feel moved to speak is that for most of my 20-year career in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service I was deeply involved in European affairs. I therefore have a particular interest in the subject under discussion. Although I do not share all of the views expressed in the report of the Federal Trust, I congratulate the authors on having produced such an admirably clear and concise statement of the potential problems which face Europe's pension funding systems and for outlining their preferred options for change. The report is commendably user friendly, even when setting out complex and detailed statistics. I am sure that I am not alone among the readers in being duly grateful for that.
1274
It has been clear for some time that there was a potential problem for several European governments in their pension funding arrangements. Most of them—as, for example, in Germany, France and Italy—have been moving to carry out the necessary adjustments. The combination of a growing pensioner group with a decreasing workforce means that a pay-as-you-go scheme can no longer be the complete answer, if indeed it ever was.
I should, however, in passing like to make a point which is increasingly being raised in debates on the subject. The effect of funded pension systems on the whole economy is something to which much more research and consideration should be given because it is still unknown territory.
The Federal Trust report has dealt with 12 member countries of the European Union. I presume that it is because of the timing of the work undertaken by the study group that the three most recent entrants—Austria, Sweden and Finland—do not figure. This is understandable, but it is a pity because these countries in particular have interesting lessons for us.
In the course of my diplomatic career I spent three years in Sweden and five years in Finland, and I have kept in close contact with those two countries ever since. In the whole field of social security there is much that can be learnt from them. In Finland, for example, private sector pensions are operated by private pensions insurance companies, with premiums paid by employers and employees. Employers may regain part of their payment if the income from the insurance company's investments exceeds a certain percentage, which is decided annually by the Ministry of Social Affairs.
The pensions insurance companies are not allowed to offer any services other than pensions insurance. The pensions paid by the insurance companies are financed by approximately one third of the investment income and approximately two thirds of premiums paid. There is also an official body which checks that all employers insure their staff and circulates regular reports to employees on the state of contributions to their individual pensions.
Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to give all the details of the Finnish pension system, but it is surely of interest that the Finns do not feel threatened by some future time bomb. They are adjusting their system by negotiating about raising the pension age to 65 and allowing pension insurance companies to undertake higher risk investments. But, in the main, they seem to feel that their system of private pensions insurance companies, closely regulated by the Ministry of Social Affairs, will adequately serve their needs.
What has been depressing in the past few weeks is the way that pension funding in Europe has occasioned so many alarmist stories about the British taxpayer having to pay the bills for the inadequacies of pension funding systems in other countries. I am trying hard to avoid at all costs being contentious. I sincerely hope that I am not being so if I say that, in my opinion, based on my knowledge of what is laid down governing this matter, it is inconceivable that this could happen. Article

1275
104b of the Maastricht Treaty, for example, states that member states will not be liable for each other's liabilities under EMU. I cannot help feeling that to the long list of Euro-myths with which we are all wearily familiar—such as straight bananas, square strawberries and hairnets for fishermen—we can now add an item about British taxpayers having to pay foreign pensioners.
What is particularly regrettable about this story is that it worries and dismays vulnerable, elderly pensioners who are concerned about the future of their pensions. It gives me no pleasure to have to say that I sometimes despair of any important European issue ever being publicly discussed in this country in a calm, rational and intelligent manner. It is because of this that, although not agreeing with all its contents, I welcome the Federal Trust report as a useful contribution to the debate on how best to deal with an important and serious issue which is facing all the countries of Europe, including our own, and about which we can surely learn from one another.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, on that memorable, thoughtful and powerful speech. She told us that she had been at Glasgow University and she also mentioned her colleagues. It may be that, as president of the students' union whilst there, she indulged in political debate. Following that she went for a distinguished career in the diplomatic service and from 1992 became the foreign policy adviser to the right honourable John Smith MP. So she brings with her a wealth of experience. I am sure that I can say on behalf of the whole House how much we look forward to hearing her frequently and soon.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I too add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for bringing this matter before us today. This debate on the pension timebomb in Europe is both emotive and very timely. It underlines the vital importance of the United Kingdom being involved in the detailed discussion on the criteria for the implementation of a single currency. Whether one believes in this country going in as early as possible or, at the other end of the spectrum, refusing to sign up at any stage, there are bound to be ramifications for the United Kingdom in the pensions field.
I would like to declare an interest as I am chairman of the Trustees of Nuffield Hospitals Pension Scheme. I hasten to say that it is not a financial interest in any way. Indeed, I am the only trustee who is not a member or a beneficiary of the scheme. In fact my only pension is the one I receive as the wife of my husband. We have a comparatively young fund and are placed around the middle of the list of funds in size. Our scheme is based on final salary. Both men and women retire at 65 with widows and widowers eligible for pension.
1276
I know that my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree has mentioned this, but the one thing that we must never forget—and I stress it by repetition—is the fact that there are more people covered by pension schemes in this country than the rest of Europe put together, with £600 billion invested. Over 10 million people are in company pension schemes; in excess of 5 million have contracted-out personal pension schemes and, in addition, approximately half a million have other personal pension schemes. I have taken this information from official figures from Government in 1992. I would suspect there may be even more by now.
Each year there are fewer people who receive only the state pension. Amongst existing pensioners about three-quarters have extra income from investments and two-thirds of pensioners receive an occupational pension in addition to the state pension.
As we have heard, many other countries pursue a pay-as-you-go policy but demographic changes, with an ageing population, a smaller workforce and higher rates of unemployment being experienced by our European partners, must be of great concern to them. But the problem is also of great concern to us. The single market development must not be allowed to put our forward planning and financial prudence in jeopardy.
I feel that the Government grasped the mettle and gave the vital lead with financial and other incentives to which the employers and employees have responded. The majority of schemes in this country are contributory with the balance of costs being paid by the employer. It is far easier for a large employer to take on the very sizeable contribution required, but I have been very heartened by the number of small employers who have made pension arrangements for their employees—both those in part time work as well as full time work. They have shown concern and respect and have acted in a most responsible way for their workforce in retirement.
The Government have at the same time maintained the value of the state pension by increasing it each year in line with prices. I believe in addition that no one has to live on the basic pension as targeted income of £1.2 billion per annum is given to those who need it to top up their incomes.
The standard of living has also increased for pensioners over the past 18 years with many more having cars, freezers, washing machines and, of course, practically all having fridges and telephones. One of the most dramatic changes is the rise in the number having central heating—78 per cent. now compared with 46 per cent. in 1979. That is such good news. I always remember my mother saying she would rather be warm and hungry than the other way round. Warmth during winter is essential to keep old people healthy and I hope the increase will continue. Perhaps the most fascinating statistic is that 44 per cent. of all pensioners have a video. I only hope they can get theirs to work—I always have difficulty.
Providing for the total of the social security budget is now costing every working person £15 each working day and is about one-third of all public expenditure. It is, therefore, vital that the costs do not spiral. Among

1277
the measures being taken personal responsibility is being encouraged, benefit fraud is being rooted out and punished and saving is also being encouraged.
Our partners in Europe have a much more difficult problem. The honourable Member of another place Frank Field said in his report:
"They can't cut pensions because people will go out on the streets and riot. If they issue bonds interest rates go up and if they print money it causes inflation".
The report goes on to say that attempts so far by countries such as France and Germany to reduce their public debt by cutting social security benefits had met with "fierce political industrial counter-action".
Perhaps the very best action to help pensioners maintain their standard of living is the control of inflation. In the late 1970s we all knew people who retired on fixed incomes, confident that they would be able to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. But no one can withstand the onslaught of 27 per cent. inflation. It was immensely saddening to see people unable to do what they had planned. In many cases they were only able to live out their lives in misery and penury. It was that experience which motivated my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to take measures to eradicate inflation from the system.
We all want our citizens to be able to have a dignified, decent, and happy retirement; to live their life to the full and not to have to worry about future financial insecurity. The Government are determined to try to deliver those aspirations.
I fear New Labour's plans for a flexible decade of retirement will end in disaster. It is splendid in theory, but who would pay for it? The public purse could not and should not be expected to fund the extra £15 billion per annum that it would eventually cost. The alternative would be a reduction of £20 per week from the basic pension—not exactly an exciting prospect for those approaching retirement. I was most interested to peruse the report by the Federal Trust and to note that the rapporteur was the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
I agree wholeheartedly with the view that the field of pensions in the European Union is difficult and in need of urgent consideration. I am, however, concerned that I could not find any reference to the fact that it was the UK which took the necessary action with policies and reforms that will benefit our economy well into the next century. The national debt will consequently be reduced. In Germany and France, where reforms are being attempted, the national debt could double as a result of their pension commitments. People in this country who have made provision should not be made to pay for our partners in Europe.
I was delighted to hear my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say in another place that there was "no question" of Britain taking on other countries' pension costs. Other countries,
"will find themselves … either having to cut pension entitlements, as some of them are trying to do now and causing trouble in the streets, or they will have to put up taxes".
1278
The Government should be congratulated on anticipating the problem. I hope your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, will agree with me.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like, first, to join in the congratulations that have been offered to my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. On the basis of what she said this afternoon, it seems that we may argue from time to time on a number of matters upon which our views may differ. Nonetheless, I welcome her because the House of Lords remains one of the places where argument is still possible, as distinct from the caterwauling which often happens not very far from here.
I am puzzled about the origins of this debate. I gather from now on, as my noble friend Lord Peston indicated, we can now have Motions drawing attention to works that may have come from our own pens. Perhaps I should give notice that I shall ask the Leader of the House to draw attention to a paper on the Common Market that I wrote nearly 33 years ago, the contents of which I am afraid, in the light of events, are indisputably correct, but that is for another occasion.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. In expressing his anxieties, he drew attention to the tendency for private pension arrangements to show increasing growth, which might in due course enable us to solve the problems that he raised. That is interesting. I have no means of disputing his predictions—they are predictions—but whether they will spread over the entire European spectrum is another matter upon which he did not venture to offer an opinion.
However, the proceedings of the other place are a little puzzling—notably the Social Security Select Committee, which culminated in the publication of a report (No. 23), which has attracted some public attention. I went through the report, and noted in particular the composition of the committee. I do not wish, obviously, to pass any comment—adverse or otherwise—on procedures adopted in another place; but I am bound to note that throughout the existence of that committee devoted to the production of that report, not one member of the Liberal Democrat Party in another place was on the committee. I find that surprising, particularly in the light of the contribution that we have heard today.
On reading the report, I found that there were four Members of my own party in another place and seven Members of the party opposite. However, I did not see a prominent Euro-sceptic among those who comprised the committee. They all seemed to be open-minded—I might almost say Europhile—and there was no one whom I would recognise as being an out-and-out sceptic. Yet they appear to have arrived at some unanimity.
Moreover, the membership of the committee contains a number of highly qualified people, including economists like my noble friend Lord Peston—although perhaps not in the same high bracket as he occupies.

1279
There was a chartered accountant, who must always be listened to in matters of mathematics, and a number of other distinguished people of varying opinions. They produced a report and, to say the least, it is uncharitable to rubbish it in advance of its discussion. The report made some very important observations, including the observation that the pension arrangements abroad and the arrangements for refunding might have some adverse consequences on the United Kingdom; that is on the assumption that the United Kingdom joins the single currency arrangements.
The fact that that should have come from a committee headed by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Field, makes it immediately worthy of attention. The report states:
"As the UK's outstanding public pension liabilities are substantially below those of other EU members, there would be a risk that if the United Kingdom joined a single currency British taxpayers could be called upon to help finance the pay-as-you-go pension obligations of other EMU members, or suffer the consequences of being tied to interest rates on the single currency that were forced up by the market pressures of financing certain countries' inherited pension commitments".
I do not believe that such an observation should give offence to anyone. I believe that if the risk is correctly apprehended by people who have studied the subject for three or four years—that is the period during which the committee has been dealing with it—the observation merits something other than derision.
In citing the International Monetary Fund's six-monthly report, the report points out that:
"Countries such as Japan, Germany and France, however, face contribution gaps of nearly 3.5 per cent. of GDP a year. To avoid a further buildup of pension debt over the next fifty-five years, these countries need either to permanently increase social security tax collections by roughly 3.5 per cent. of GDP, or scale back benefits by a similar amount, or implement a combination of tax increases and payout reductions of this magnitude".
Surely, such observations from the IMF should be given some attention. They are not frivolous observations—and I have often been accused of making those by reason of my well known views on the subject. The observations are from a cross-party committee in another place quoting a perfectly reputable body and I believe that, to put it at its mildest, there is a case to answer.
I know that my noble friend Lord Peston believes that it is ultimately a question of arithmetic and that ultimately it will solve itself. That is a most comforting observation, but perhaps not as comforting as it might be bearing in mind that he referred to the "brutal" facts. My experience of people who give voice to brutal facts is that they have rarely suffered personally from any brutality or, at any rate, from some of the ignominy, despair and hopelessness that is endured daily by at least 2 million of our population in the United Kingdom. They are the people with whom we must ultimately be concerned.
The OECD study on the impact of demography on the levels of saving and government spending on pensions, health and education commented:
"It is clear that if present [public] pension payments are left untouched, the pension schemes in some countries would impose major burdens on their societies in the next century, either through
1280
requiring higher taxation or other spending cuts, or by rapidly increasing public debt burdens resulting from high primary deficits".
Figures have already been given which show that in funding the United Kingdom has done better than the rest.
The committee had the opportunity of visiting the European Commission in Brussels, notably DG2 and DG10, and made some observations. A note on its visit states:
"The European Commission document considered at Verona had recognised that national sovereignty over tax matters would continue, at least for the moment".
I give some emphasis to that comment because it was always said that the taxation arrangements would remain undisturbed.
The issue must be faced. Let us say, for example, that the efforts towards voluntary pension arrangements—particularly as they affect the poorer sections of the Community, many of whom have not yet had the opportunity of obtaining employment—have a partial success. That still leaves some unfunded debts. I know that contingent liabilities have no meaning for economists: because they are contingent, they are unascertainable and therefore they are not by reference to any particular mathematical formula. But they are important. With the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty as they are—in particular Article 104C—every sentence, bar sentence 14, being applicable to the UK whether it opts in or out, it is quite clear that the proposed new mechanism in the stability pact may well involve the UK's bankers, who will of course be the Community's bankers (the ECB). They may have to act in a way which helps other member states to finance their own deficits in this respect. If that happens, we cannot escape our own financial responsibility here. And our own financial responsibility will be determined by our bankers, who are not elected but who will be our bankers and in possession of our foreign exchange reserves once the single currency comes into operation.
Therefore, I believe that the Select Committee's report deserves far wider examination, and far more dispassionate examination at that, before we can dismiss it as another Euro-sceptic stunt. I am not interested in stunts; I am interested in arriving at the truth, and sooner or later the truth must be ascertained.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is extremely apposite, but I must take issue with him slightly at the start because I believe that his paper begs the question as regards whether we should even join the EMU at all. At the same time, he continues to believe that there is a huge time bomb, as he so aptly describes it. It is indeed a huge time bomb. I am less sanguine than he is as regards the ease with which we shall be able to cope with that time bomb. The cost to our colleagues in Europe will be significant as it will be to a lesser extent to ourselves and to the Dutch.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree expounded very clearly on the strength of the position which we have in the United Kingdom from which we can start

1281
planning further investment provision for the future. Therefore, I need not dwell on that at length. But in my view it is evident that convergence decisions which do not account for discernible debts which can be calculated in terms of tens of billions of pounds in the future—that is, within 10 or 15 years—amount to nothing less than creative accounting and will be the final nail in the coffin of EMU, if indeed it ever happens.
Therefore, the question is raised whether we should take part in such a deception. If the funds are to be found by the French and the Germans from their own pockets—and the paper clearly details the costs that they will incur—and if they are to make sufficient provision for their pensioners in the future, they will have to raise taxes. That will damage their economy. If we are in there with them, we shall have to raise our interest rates and increase the unemployment factor throughout EMU.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has already mentioned what steps are being taken in that respect and how increased contributions are being imposed and pension dates are being delayed. Benefits are being reduced. But all that will result in lower employment—and not only that, it may cause serious political unrest throughout Europe. That must be quite self-evident.
The problem is perhaps not so much what the European Central Bank will do, as I suspect that it will be as hard on the finance ministers as it should be; the problem is what the Commission will do. If we are not careful, it will find ways to weevil through legislation which will provide that we should all be taxed together to show our communautaire spirit in the cause of health and safety at work. However, I take heart from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who made a very wise and comforting maiden speech. She seems to be quite happy about the future but I have some suspicions. That is why it is so important to stop the Commission and its politically motivated Court in its tracks at the present time and to ensure that the elected Parliament in our unique parliamentary democracy must have the final say in the imposition of taxes and control over our way of life in this country.
The noble Lord's report demonstrates clearly that the Commission, having failed to interfere through a new directive, is now beavering away to bring to bear influence through the capital liberalisation directive. I have not read that directive, but it would appear that it may bring great benefits to City investment houses and institutions. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will have a few words to say on that. I am very much open to be convinced on that point.
The pension time bomb lives in our own economy in a very real way, and the pungent paper prepared by Mr. Frank Field, who was of course a contributor to the noble Lord's report and who was chairman of the Select Committee in the other place, is a remarkable example of the need for additional compulsory provision. It has been said that such provision will be seen as a tax. Indeed, in a sense it will be but it will be no more than the present national insurance contributions which source current old-age pensions. The funds so accumulated will be actual savings that each individual
1282
tax-paying employee or self-employed individual can account for and be able regularly to value the fund in preparation for retirement.
There is a need for all employees to start making provision as soon as they start employment. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the Government Actuary suggests that we can proceed at the existing rate. I believe that he is referring to the Government Actuary's suggestion in Mr. Field's report that pension payments would start at the age of 18. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, mentioned that there would need to be provision of £200 per month at the age of 25 and £400 per month if one started at the age of 30. That demonstrates quite clearly the vital need for compulsory pension contributions to start at the earliest possible opportunity: as soon as any single individual starts paying national insurance contributions. Indeed, I am on record making that proposal in previous debates on pensions while I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. If that is done, there will be a good chance that we shall be able to leap the hurdle of the noble Lord's time bomb, and we shall fall at that hurdle, without doubt, if we fail to do so.
There is some talk of a stability pact which it is hoped will prevent unassociated European countries from putting a spanner in the works; for example, by taking advantage of exchange rate variations. Just such a pact may involve us in bailing out our less provident colleagues. I am all for a stability pact which will deliver stability so long as it does not destabilise established relationships in our country. We must be on our guard and I have confidence in the Prime Minister's assurance that we shall not be caught in any such trap.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Ramsay who made a quite remarkable and excellent maiden speech. In the other place we have always said that we shall look forward to hearing the maiden speaker often in the future. I say it and mean it. We very much look forward to hearing from my noble friend. She showed a quite remarkable knowledge and we look forward to hearing from her on many occasions in the future.
Like many others in this debate, I begin by declaring an interest in the sense that I have an MP's pension, a ministerial pension; but, much larger than that, to indicate the benefits of the tax system, I have a very large pension fund which I have not yet drawn on. It is a marvellous system. For every £1,000 one pays in, it costs only £600 but it grows from the £1,000. It is a marvellous system, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will be aware. Therefore, I declare that interest.
Perhaps I may revert to the subject of the debate and the title of the report. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has had the opportunity to introduce this debate. I know that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington takes a keen interest whenever Europe is mentioned. I have constant disagreements with him on that subject, although I am very fond of him. Moreover, he generally takes great care in quotes that he makes, although on this occasion he quoted

1283
Article 104c, but not the more important one, which is Article 104b. In relation to that, the Chancellor, in answering a question on 6th November, made it quite clear, quoting the no bail-out clause of the Maastricht Treaty—as did the noble Lord, Lord Taverne—that a member state cannot be liable for another member state's commitments in any area of spending.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, my noble friend is not a cynic. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, told us that he is not a cynic. I am bound to say to him that if he is not a cynic, he would not be sitting on the Cross-Benches. He would be sitting where he normally should be—on the opposite Benches. However, I do not wish to be difficult with him. He chose another reason why there will have to be a bail-out. He said that there are fiddles in Europe by member states trying to get within the 3 per cent. of GDP. Of course that is true. I never indulged in creative accounting during the whole of the five years when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Neither did I indulge in fiddles or fudges. The noble Lord said that in his view, because of all that, there would inevitably be occasions when we would have to bail out those member states. That was the implication of what he was saying.
That was unlike my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who said he did not believe in stunts. I agree with him. He does not believe in stunts; he is just a strong Euro-sceptic all the time. When the word "Europe" is mentioned, he is immediately sceptical, whatever the subject that is being discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his uncynical way, must concede that if those countries can fiddle their accounts in the way he suggested—and that might happen in the future—there would then have to be new European Union legislation going beyond the Maastricht Treaty to allow those bail outs to occur. The noble Lord is nodding in agreement. I shall leave that point because the plain fact is that at the moment there is no possibility of member states, including the UK—whether or not we are in economic and monetary union—having to bail out other countries' debts, whether those have arisen because of pensions funds or anything else.
I now turn to the report itself. There is a strong foreword by Sir Brian Corby. I agree with much of what he stated about future costs. However, on that point, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. Of course the future costs constitute the real time bomb. There may not be a crisis as of this moment. My noble friend Lord Peston referred to Government actuary figures which claim we can manage for another 50 years. We can manage, but on inadequate pensions. That is how we shall manage. It is quite wrong to imagine that we shall be able to manage in that way for 50 years, or for anything remotely like that length of time. I am glad to see my noble friend nodding in agreement.
I agree with Sir Brian Corby when he says we must not saddle our children and grandchildren with burdens that they would find difficult to deliver. That is absolutely right. However, I disagree with him when he states that the generation approaching retirement will be wealthier than its predecessors. That is right. But he further states that that generation will be better able to
1284
provide for its own retirement needs. That depends how one defines the word "approaching". If one has only a few years before retirement but one has not taken out adequate insurance or a pension scheme, one will not be able to manage. I certainly do not accept that for all those approaching retirement things will be easier. They will certainly not be easier for all those who are approaching retirement now. We shall need to look after them.
I agree strongly with chapter 3 of this report which has the excellent heading "No Easy Solutions". Certainly there are no easy solutions to this serious problem. It has been said in this debate that there is a possibility of raising the retirement age, which could be justified by fiscal means and the fact that people are living longer. We in your Lordships' House can certainly say, "Thank God for that". However, we had better accept that no government in the foreseeable future will raise the retirement age or reduce benefit with the ensuing consequences for pensioners. I do not believe that will happen. I say that without being a cynic, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I do not believe that any government, whether Labour, Conservative, or even in the remote possibility of our having a Liberal government, would do such a thing.
I now turn to chapter 7 which concerns the transition to private funding. The alternatives set out in this report in chapter 5 as regards book reserve schemes are worth noting. As regards book reserve schemes, Germany and other countries have introduced that scheme and have thereby helped their pensioners considerably. It is worth noting, incidentally, that those schemes apply generally to large companies but not to small companies. Privately funded pension schemes are referred to in chapter 6. It has already been said in this debate that we shall have to move to privately funded schemes, even if that will help the insurance companies, in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, declared an interest. We shall have to adopt privately funded schemes. However, the question that arises is whether they would need to be compulsory or voluntary.
My noble friend Lord Peston spoke of the time when he was a young worker, if one can call an assistant lecturer a worker! However, I am sure he worked hard and that his students could vouch for that. There is no way young working people will be willing to save enough money for their eventual retirement, not just because they do not think they will retire one day, but because they need the money from their wages now. They will not save enough; there is no question about that. We shall have to grasp the nettle that there will need to be compulsory privately funded schemes. I do not see how we can avoid recognising that fact. I certainly recognise that need and support them. I now turn to chapter 7 which concerns the transition to private funding. The report states that this will inevitably be gradual. It will certainly have to be gradual if we are to try to persuade young, middle aged and older people to take out privately funded schemes on anything like the required scale. That will not happen unless it is made compulsory.

1285
I like the report because it is honest, and all of us must be honest about this subject. The report is sensible, but we have to accept that there is no immediate answer to the problem. There will not be a solution in the next few years for those who, in the words of Sir Brian Corby, are "approaching" retirement. I am sorry to upset my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington by mentioning the word "Europe" again. However, a Europe-wide scheme which would allow for mobility of labour, and all the things that are referred to in the annex, would be helpful, especially if the privately funded schemes had the kind of tax relief that I was able to take advantage of.
A Europe-wide scheme would be helpful and could be achieved either by using a privately funded scheme, and/or a book reserve scheme. However, as I say, we are bound to recognise that it would not help those who are approaching retirement now. We have to do something to help them. The state had better recognise that it will have to help them. The money will have to be found out of taxation. We shall not get it from any other member state in the European Union, just as they cannot get it from us. We shall have to finance people now before we reach the stage when people entering retirement have adequate privately funded pension schemes. We must not pretend that the situation will be anything other than the way I have described it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have had a good debate on the publication, The Pension Time Bomb in Europe, and an interesting maiden speech by my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. Most of what I had intended to say has already been said—luckily for me. Therefore, I speak from a slightly different angle.
We are talking about distribution. My noble friend Lord Peston took an economist's view, an economy-wide view: that at any point in time pensioners can only have what earners will not consume. In considering funded or unfunded pension schemes we take a micro-economic view. A funded pension scheme at a given point in time can be relatively independent of the economy's performance. It can do somewhat better than the economy. But all pension schemes cannot do better than the economy. The problem is not as regards the individual myopia that my noble friend Lord Peston and others have mentioned. I believe that there is a collective myopia. In western Europe when we had the best years of growth, the elderly population was small in number. It was easy to give generous pension entitlements because at that time the outgoings were small and with a large population of working age there was large growth. It seemed to be the Utopia that we all wanted.
However, in the past 15 years growth in western Europe has slowed down, and I do not envisage the average GDP in Europe accelerating very much. To some extent we may benefit from the East Asian miracle, emerging economies and so on; but the more one invests outside the country, the less one invests at home, and there will be problems.
1286
We are facing a crucial issue. The GDP is not growing as fast as in the 1950s or 1960s. We have a larger elderly population. Who will lose out? As my noble friend Lord Barnett and others have said, to a certain extent there is a severe distribution problem. Within that distribution problem, as occurs with some privately funded schemes, some people will do slightly better than others. I am more worried about those people not covered by privately funded schemes. Those, like myself, who are covered by privately funded schemes will be all right. Yes, we shall suffer; we shall not have as much as we had thought, but we shall not be on the streets. The real problem relates to those who have to rely, by and large, on state pensions. Even if they have a private scheme, their lifetime incomes will not be high enough for them to afford large savings for a pension at the end of the rainbow.
I am also worried that nothing in the report takes care of problems relating to women, who often do not work or who work for an insufficient period of time, or who are left widowed. Pension scheme rules are not always honest. I am not as much an enemy of capitalism as I used to be, but I am no great friend of it, because people make profits by not giving as much as they should. We have witnessed the scandal of private pensions. Even after the scandal, there are still no payments. I have heard cynical remarks by members of insurance companies who say that their actuaries have told them that the longer they wait, the less they will have to pay out because the claimants will be dead. The claimant's estate may be able to make a claim—with violins playing in the background. But basically some people are being robbed and they are not being compensated. However, I leave that aside; it is perhaps contentious.
Increasingly there will be those in the population who will not build up sufficient savings over a lifetime of work to finance a pension. That may apply to 30 or 40 per cent. of the workforce. Technology is changing. We know that there will not be the work perspective to which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred—of starting work at 20 and working for 45 years. Jobs will not be like that. Although there will be mobility of pensions, we shall not be able to compensate for the fact that there will not be work for quite a lot of people. What does one do about those people? That will be the real time bomb as regards pensions.
What my noble friend Lord Barnett said is crucial. Governments will have to stop pretending that the problem does not exist and ask whether society, through taxation, wants to pay a decent pension to people who would otherwise be left in poverty. We do not need detailed research into poverty statistics. We know that that will include the elderly, single mothers and the unemployed. The numbers in those three categories will not decrease; if anything, they will increase, notwithstanding the palaver about family values. We have not tackled that large problem.
Although it will affect a smaller part of the population, the problem will be greater. In the rush for private pensions, those who take out such pensions will be reluctant to pay through taxation for the state pension. That is what we have found. After all, we have

1287
reneged on a promise made to pensioners rightly or wrongly. When the rules were changed from average earnings to index linking, we reneged. Breaking such promises will occur again in the future unless we inculcate the culture that people must have an entitlement to a minimum standard of living, especially in their old age. Excellent though the report is, it does not tackle that problem.
As my noble friend Lady Ramsay pointed out, the report deals with only 12 of the European Union countries. What worries me is this. We know that when the expansion towards eastern Europe takes place, the problem will be more serious in terms of budgetary burdens on the European Union of transfer payments and other matters. If one takes a longer term perspective, the problem of adequate pensions for elderly people will be more serious. Excellent though privately funded schemes are—I am sure that there will be more of them—they do not tackle the problem which will cause serious social deprivation in Europe. Until we face up to that, we shall not have taken care of the pension problem.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the fact that we have had an informed and at times lively debate on this vital issue justifies the action taken by my noble friend Lord Taverne in raising it today. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, seemed to criticise my noble friend for phrasing the subject of the debate by reference to a report in which he was involved. However, my noble friend explained carefully why he had done so. He would have preferred to have debated the report of the Select Committee in another place but he was advised that that could not be done because it had not yet been debated there. Therefore, he did the next best thing, and I believe that he was quite justified in the action he took.
How refreshing it was to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I was particularly impressed—I hope we all took it to heart—with her concluding remarks. She said that it was about time we tackled some of the European issues in an objective and informed manner. I believe that we should address the subject of the so-called pension time bomb in that manner.
In the course of the debate today there has been a certain amount of common ground, as there often is in the debates in this House. The common ground has been, first, that undoubtedly there is a problem. Indeed, that was made clear not only in the report with which my noble friend is associated but also in the report of the Select Committee of another place and in the report from the European pension organisation to which my noble friend referred.
The reasons for the problem have been clearly stated. One is increased longevity. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, we should be the last to complain about that. It is a great social asset that people are living longer. We must aim to make their longer lives happier and more secure. Falling birthrates may or may not be regarded as a good thing. Widespread unemployment is certainly undesirable and must be overcome. Early
1288
retirement is quite contrary to what should he happening given our longer lifespan. Recently, we have seen lower economic growth generally; and there is budgetary stringency. All those factors have contributed to the problem. The question is how it should be dealt with.
There are many aspects to the problem. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that the issue will be made even more difficult when the central and eastern European countries become members of the enlarged Community. All those aspects have to be considered.
As I found when reading material in preparation for this debate, not only in this country but elsewhere, too, the problems are being taken very seriously. One aspect of the debate on the single currency is often missed; namely, it has concentrated minds on the proper running of the financial and economic affairs of each country. I cannot think of a time, during our lifetime or before, when it could positively be stated that 15 countries in western Europe and a number of other countries aiming to join the Union were so undividedly concentrating their attention on getting their budgetary systems and government expenditure right, dealing with the problems of unemployment and so on. We are living in a unique situation of transparency and recognition of the problems that we face. Surely that is a positive aspect to the debate, whatever we may feel about joining or not joining a single currency.
The same is true in relation to pensions. We may say that they present a major problem and ask how it will be dealt with. But at least it is being looked into and dealt with seriously in the parliaments of a number of member countries. My noble friend referred to action being taken in Italy. The measures are creating trouble and difficulty, and sometimes there are riots in the streets. But governments in Italy, France, Germany and other countries are seizing the problems and trying to deal with them. These are positive developments indeed.
In this context, as a number of noble Lords pointed out, the UK is more fortunately placed. We have a much better balanced pension arrangement as between funded and unfunded schemes. The European Commission introduced a pension fund directive, referred to in my noble friend's report, in which it tried to encourage more funded schemes and open up investment by those schemes in a wider range of countries than the member country concerned. Unfortunately, the proposal was objected to and therefore did not come about. I hope that soon a further initiative will be taken in that respect.
The question of moving into a higher proportion of funded schemes is being seriously considered at the present time. It is right, as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Peston, Lord Marsh and Lord Barnett, that we should have a clear combination of the state scheme—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, emphasised the importance of that—and a funded scheme; and that a degree of compulsion should be introduced into the funded element. That is an important point which emerged from the discussions we had. It is another area where I believe there was, if I dare use the word, a "convergence" of opinion emerging. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in replying, will take up these points.

1289
What is so interesting is that the consideration on the Continent of the introduction of more funded schemes raises the question of equity markets. On the whole, we in Britain, the United States and some other countries have had a very much more highly developed equity market than have the continental countries. Generally, people on the Continent have been worried about how they invested their money and have gone for bonds, saving schemes and so on, in which they have been much encouraged by various tax incentives. Now, however, they are beginning to realise that they need to move more and more in the direction of equity investment which is related to privately funded schemes.
The recent issue of Deutsche Telekom in Germany represented an historic departure in the attitude of the German investing public, in that it was over-subscribed several times. More and more privatisation issues are likely to arise in Germany and elsewhere which will awaken interest in equity funding. If the funded schemes to which we refer can get off the ground and the range of equity funding can be widened, substantial amounts of capital could be released for investment in European business activities, manufacturing and other productive engagements. So we can see coming out of this development something that is very positive. It is a serious problem; however, it has another side to it which could be positive.
That leads me to consideration of the role that the UK should be playing. Frankly, I was a little dismayed to read the views expressed in the report of the Select Committee of another place. The committee seemed to think that the only impact on the UK could be that we should be asked to finance the pension deficits of other countries. In my opinion that proposition is totally ludicrous. We could not even begin to do that, as was pointed out by some of our friends on the Continent.
I believe that the role of the UK should be to try to help our continental friends to move in the direction in which we have moved: to enable them to achieve a better balance between funded and unfunded schemes, and to explain to them how the equity market works and how it could be widened and opened up in our common interest. That could be a positive role for the UK. Given remarks already made by the Government in response to the Select Committee's report, I hope that will be a route that they feel we should pursue.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. I, like every other speaker, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for introducing it. We have ranged a little wider than the report we were invited to consider; however, this is a very wide subject.
Before I respond, I want to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I nearly said "my noble friend", because, as she indicated, we go back a long way. I met her only once during her long and distinguished career with the Diplomatic Service, when I visited Finland in my capacity as Scottish health Minister. Then, much to the
1290
surprise of both of us, we discovered in the line-up that we knew each other. We were probably considered pretty rude for the rest of the evening, since we sat in a corner, partook of some of the wine of our country—even in Finland, and despite its price—and discussed all our mutual friends. Many of them are in this Palace in one capacity or another. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham introduced me one day as "one of the Lord Mackays". He said, "I am beginning to think you need to be called Mackay to get in here". I believe my noble friend may have to rephrase his remark. You may have to have been at Glasgow University between about 1955 and 1965 in order to get into either House. As the noble Baroness said, we are a pretty "cross-party" lot. In the other place the right honourable Member for Garscadden, Mr. Donald Dewar, the honourable Member for North-East Fife, from the Liberal Democrat party, and in my own party the honourable and indefatigable Member for Southend East are three examples of the same vintage. To show that in Scottish politics we embrace all sides, for a brief time until I put a stop to it, the Scottish National Party was represented by Mr. Iain Maccormick, who was also one of our number.
In case noble Lords think that that happens merely in politics, a particularly important achievement by the noble Baroness was to be not only the first woman president of the Students Representative Council, SRC for short, at Glasgow University, but also the first woman president of the Scottish Union of Students. Those are two considerable achievements when we realise that it was back in the 1950s. She succeeded another of our colleagues who has just given up the office of president of the International Bar Council. So noble Lords can see that we are a fairly cross-party and cross-purpose group.
Perhaps our most famous colleague at the time at the university achieved something else more important. For many years he created—not manufactured—the Macallan whisky on Speyside. That ceased recently. Noble Lords can see that it was a vintage few years at Glasgow University! We warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, to our midst and look forward to hearing many more of her contributions in the future.
Hardly a day goes past without an opportunity to read about the latest report or study on the ageing of Europe's population and the issues that raises. This is particularly the case in relation to pensions. Most recently, the Social Security Select Committee in another place reported on the unfunded pensions liabilities in all the member states and in particular some of those on the mainland of Europe. That has been an issue for some time and has brought to the fore the 1994 report of the Federal Trust which forms the kernel of our debate this afternoon.
I agree with much of the report and I am glad to see that its conclusions are broadly in line with the policies pursued by the Government in this area. Moreover, since the report appeared in 1994, many European countries have recognised the problem and are beginning to take action.

1291
To put the debate into context, fertility rates have declined while longevity has increased. I welcome both, although it seemed that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, welcomed only the longevity. I am not entirely sure that I do not welcome both because in a crowded little island like ours in an increasingly crowded world, it seems to me that fertility rates continuing at their high level would cause us enormous problems, far greater than those we are discussing today.
The average male life expectancy is set to increase from today's 74 years to 76 by 2010 and 78 by 2025. One interesting fact—I was going to say "useless", but it is not useless because it illustrates the problem posed in our own system when we examine our own pension provision—is that in 1945, when the welfare state as we now know it was created, the average life expectancy of a man was 63. You do not have to be an actuary to realise that pitching the retirement age at 65 was not a bad actuarial decision. Today men's retirement age would have to be 75 if we were honouring exactly the same promise as was made in the 1940s. Sometimes those who use the pension promise that was made in the 1940s and 1950s use it too glibly because they do not appreciate that the position has moved dramatically since that promise was made.
The number of workers compared with the number of pensioners is set to fall from just over 3:1 in 1994 to just over 2:1 in 2040. That takes account of the equalisation of the state pension age for men and women. So there will be fewer workers paying fewer taxes and contributions when at the same time there are more elderly and retired people in the population.
The issue of increased pension liabilities, particularly unfunded or pay-as-you-go liabilities, as the population ages is a serious one which we in this country have already recognised. We began to take the necessary steps in the early 1980s. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seemed to recognise that. However, I was not entirely sure whether the beginning of his speech and the end of it were quite logical. I shall come to that in a moment. The noble Lord recognised it and asked me whether it was true that the Government predict that contribution rates will not rise in the long term. The rate of contributions is predicted to vary slightly from the current level as the post-war baby boom and the 1960s baby boom move through to retirement. No long-term increase is predicted.
The reason for that is that, since the Conservatives won the election in 1979 we have taken serious steps—without the approval of the Opposition—to ensure that actuarially the system can work and continue into 2010, 2020 and beyond. We broke the link between the basic state pension and earnings. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that that was a wise move. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, agreed at the end of his speech. I thought he complained a little about it. His noble friend Lady Hollis, with whom I am more usually locked in debate, as your Lordships know, has criticised me on a number of occasions for breaking that link, but as I understand it, it is as near a part of official Labour Party policy as anything that is official Labour Party policy. Perhaps we are reaching the same ground and I look forward to not being criticised on it again.
1292
It is important to say, and the scale of the figure is well worth mentioning, that, if we had not broken that link but had kept it, this year the welfare budget would have cost £7.4 billion more. I am glad to hear that other people are joining us, looking back and saying that the decision in 1981 was correct.
We also began to encourage individuals to make greater provision for themselves through the introduction of greater flexibility and choice in pension options. That is largely through the 1988 Act put through by my right honourable friend Mr. Norman Fowler. Money purchase schemes, both occupational and personal, were allowed to contract out of SERPS. As a result of those efforts to encourage private provision, over three-quarters of employees opted out of SERPS. Over 20 million people have rights in occupational pension schemes and over 5 million people are holders of appropriate personal pensions.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam returned, as he has on a number of occasions, to compulsory pension provision. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that he never undertook any fiddles, but those of your Lordships who have read his book will realise that they are classified under the title "wheezes". I always enjoy debating with him. The noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Peston, together with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, discussed the problem of compulsion.
We already have a compulsory second-tier pension in this country for employees who earn enough to pay national insurance contributions. They must either be in SERPS or in a contracted out scheme which provides at least equivalent benefits to SERPS. So a compulsion exists for those in employment and sometimes I feel we tend to forget that when we discuss the possibility of compulsion. I appreciate that the debate can move on from that to compulsion for those people who are self-employed, although many take out pensions, and for compulsion to go further than the equivalent of SERPS. Those are issues to which all parties will return in the months and years ahead because I do not believe the problem of pension provision will be easily resolved or go away.
We have continued to deal with the demographic situation, building on the changes which we introduced in the 1980s. We have reformed SERPS. Again, that has been pretty unpopular with the party opposite. We have done so not because we wish to be miserly, but because we wish the scheme to be affordable. I sometimes wonder how people could have sat round the table in the Department of Social Security and devised SERPS. I wonder about the actuaries who advised them. By 2030, unreformed, SERPS would have imposed a burden on taxpayers—because it is a pay-as-you-go scheme—of £41 billion. Because of the changes we have made, it is now £12 billion and it is clearly much more affordable. We have also equalised the state pension age at 65 and we had a debate in this Chamber during the course of the pensions Bill. I was invited to go for 60 but the cost of that would have been about £15 billion extra by 2025.
I was asked to go for a flexible decade of retirement, so that retirement could take place any time between the ages of 60 and 70. But, of course, everybody who retired

1293
under 65 years of age would impose additional costs. While the cost of everybody retiring at 60 might not have reached £15 billion, it would have begun to approach that figure as more and more people retired at 60 and took advantage. So the additional cost would have been there. I now see that a "wobble" is being put on that policy by the party opposite. In fact, the party opposite says that people can retire early but that their pension would be cut by the actuarial calculation of that early retirement. That could easily mean that somebody retiring at 60, instead of having the £61 that has been mentioned, would have barely £40 a week. And that would not be just until that person was 65; it would be £40 a week for the rest of his life. Then, to avoid claims by those people for income support, if that is what they need, one would have to make sure that they could not do it or else the cost would still be in the area of the £15 billion that I mentioned.
So we took steps to make the situation affordable and to resolve the problem in this country. Private funded pensions need to be secured. We took steps with the Pensions Act, after the Maxwell affair, to give people confidence in occupational pensions. I did not see the television programme last night. I decided that I had not taken enough sick bags from aeroplanes over the past few weeks in order to allow me to see the programme through. I gather from this morning's reviews that I probably missed nothing from that point of view. The Act of course increases the security of members, which is very important.
We welcome the growth of group personal pensions among those employers who do not currently run an occupational scheme but who wish to do something for their employees' retirement. We certainly want to encourage that. I believe that the Act provides the framework that we need to build on to encourage people to provide for their own retirement. A number of noble Lords mentioned young people and that issue was vividly illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. We have run a campaign in one part of the country to test how we get through to young people to get them to start pensions. It has been quite successful and the feedback has been good. We have tried to bring in the pensions industry to take on that campaign and direct some of its campaigning in an attractive way at those young people. I have to say that some of the captions used might have made some of your Lordships gulp a little, but they certainly had the desired effect of bringing the advertisement and the problem to the young people's attention.
All those steps are helping and they have helped with the £600 billion that we have invested in private pension funds. It is invested not only in the United Kingdom. More than a quarter of funds are invested overseas. So to an extent, we have spread the load around and made sure that even if some time in the future our economy does not perform so well as it might do, we have perhaps investments in other economies which are performing well. So those are good things.
The positive effects have been recognised by, for example, the OECD. The OECD recognised that there is a partnership between public and private provision
1294
which places us in a healthy position. We are alone with Canada in avoiding the mounting debt problems faced by other OECD countries as a result of the growing costs of pension provision. The policies which rely in a very big way on pay-as-you-go can lead to very difficult problems, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree mentioned. The OECD estimates that the net present value of the liabilities of unfunded public pension schemes in this country is just 19 per cent. of GDP; for France it is 98 per cent.; for Italy it is 113 per cent.; and for Germany it is 139 per cent.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe illustrated in very real terms the improvements in living standards that we have seen for our elderly people as more and more pensioners retire with second and third-tier pensions and in a very much better position than people were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I do not normally take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but I believe that pensioners are becoming much better off and indeed the proportion of pensioners in the lowest income decile has fallen significantly since 1979, from 31 per cent. to 8 per cent. I am sure that we all welcome that.
The IMF, in its World Economic Outlook for May 1996, drew attention to the problem and suggested that countries such as Germany and France would have either to raise social security tax collections or reduce pension liabilities by around 3.5 per cent. of GDP.
I do not wish to give the impression that our European partners are not taking steps to deal with their problems. Of course they are. Indeed, mention was made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, about what is happening in other countries. The French Government are to submit an amended finance Bill to the parliament in December with a view to encouraging some funded second-tier pensions for private sector employees. They have also changed the way that unfunded pensions accrue and have introduced a new tax of one-half of 1 per cent. in order to reduce the welfare deficit. Indexation of pensions in France is now based on prices rather than earnings—a little like this country. Italy has instigated a number of reforms. Spain and Italy have introduced tax incentives for private schemes. Germany will see a gradual raising of the retirement age for women from 60 to 65 and for men from 63 to 65. Clearly, more will have to be done but I believe that a start is being made.
For the last two or three minutes of my speech I want to return to the Social Security Select Committee report. There has been considerable speculation in the press and elsewhere—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, brought it to the fore in this debate—that, because we have funded schemes in this country and many Continental countries have large unfunded schemes, we might find ourselves having to pay for their large unfunded schemes. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no question that we shall pay for pensions for the workforces of Germany, France, Italy or any other country.
Many noble Lords have mentioned that Article 104b of the Maastricht Treaty is perfectly clear. I draw your Lordships' attention in particular to two passages. The first reads:

1295
"The Community shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State".
That is quite clear. The next sentence goes on:
"A Member State shall not be liable for … the … undertakings of another Member State".
So it is perfectly clear in Article 104b that each individual member state will have to bite its own bullet, so to speak, and deal with the problem inside its own boundaries. They will have either to raise taxes or reduce pensions. It is perfectly clear that that is what they will have to do. Some of them are beginning to move in that direction. Moreover, the next part of the same Maastricht Treaty—Article 104c—makes clear that the rules of excessive deficits will apply. In fact, in the very first sentence it states:
"Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits".
It goes on to suggest how they will do it. The stability pact is under consideration. I have a Question on that to answer tomorrow and so I may leave it until tomorrow to deal with that problem. So, other member states will have to address the pensions problems that they have, just as we have had to address the problem that we have in this country. Nobody should be in any doubt about that.
I welcome the attention that has been focused on this issue this afternoon and I am glad that international organisations such as the OECD as well as the Social Security Select Committee and the earlier report of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, have recognised the strong position that we are in in the United Kingdom. Our policy is simply based. We believe in a triple partnership between the individual, the state and the private sector. Our aim is to encourage funded pension provision while at the same time ensuring that the state pension system remains affordable and the less well off pensioners are given adequate support through the benefit system. That means maximising choice and flexibility. It means providing adequate protection. It means that the whole system and the economy have to be run on a sound financial footing. It is through that kind of partnership that we have demonstrated to Europe how to deal with the pension problem.
This has been an interesting debate. A certain amount of common ground is beginning to emerge as the party opposite begins to agree with some of the matters with which they have disagreed over the past 17 years. That is to be welcomed. I believe that it is certainly welcome for the pensioners of the future.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, it occurred to me after I moved the debate that perhaps I should have declared an interest. I do not believe it is relevant, but I am a director of an international insurance company.
I cannot refer to all the valuable contributions which have been made in the course of the debate, which I much enjoyed and from which I learnt a great deal. I therefore want to concentrate on two main issues. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out, there has been a considerable measure of agreement. There has been agreement that there must be some sort of
1296
compulsory second tier. The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Marsh, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, felt that we should go further than what is perhaps a compulsory element at the present time. It was felt that it must be funded and involve a measure of state aid if everyone is to be helped, because it must be universal.
There is a great deal to be said for a Select Committee of this House looking at the problem of pensions in this country. We face a grave and serious problem. We sometimes boast about the relatively good fiscal position we are in; but we must remember that the reason we are in such a good position is that we still tolerate a degree of poverty among the elderly in this country which would be regarded as intolerable by some of our European partners whose fiscal position we criticise.
The second main point I wish to address was particularly well covered in the impressive maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I am sure that in future all our debates will he greatly enhanced by the experience, eloquence and insight which she can bring to bear.
The noble Baroness said that we can learn from Finland. I entirely agree. I believe we can learn from many other countries too. We have a great deal to learn from Australia, Switzerland—which also passed a referendum in favour of a compulsory second tier—and the Netherlands. We have much to learn from all those countries about transition and securing a simple form of ministration for those universal pensions which is much less costly than that available at the present time.
I agree with the noble Baroness that there are shortcomings in the Federal Trust report. It was written two years ago and a great deal has happened since. There have been many developments over the past two years, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, not only in the reforms that have been made in terms of limiting the Government's commitments to the future, but also in the shift that is now visible towards funded schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that those hidden debts are matters of actuarial certainty. That is true, but they are not certain debts. Politics and commitments change and all sorts of changes have been taking place even since the Select Committee sat. My criticism of the Select Committee is that it does not appear to have paid sufficient attention to the changes which have taken place in other countries.
Finally, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that there is no question of our being liable to bail out other countries for their pension debts. I was glad also to have the endorsement of such an impressive, authoritative and uncontroversial maiden speech that the Select Committee's report is based on myth and belongs in the same category as the straight banana and the square strawberry. I hope that the issue of monetary union will be discussed on its merits and will not be affected by the gigantic red herring drawn across our path by the Select Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The National Lottery: Second Weekly Draw
5.33 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell rose to call attention to the likely impact upon charities, trusts and foundations of the decision to hold a second weekly National Lottery draw; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to call attention to the likely impact upon charities, trusts and foundations of the decision to hold a second weekly National Lottery draw. In doing so I am particularly glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, intends to make his maiden speech, and I know that we shall listen to him with great interest and wish him well.
The words "the likely impact" in the title of the debate are something upon which I should like to comment. To quote a famous phrase: we do not have to look in any crystal ball in relation to this matter; the books are on our tables for us to see what the impact has been of the existing National Lottery and therefore we can calculate what the future holds.
Before dealing with the substance of the debate I must declare a number of interests. First, I was a member of the National Lottery Promotion Company which had in its membership Mr. Richard Luce of the other place, my noble friend Lord Birkett and myself, under the inspired leadership of Mr. Denis Vaughan. We promoted the National Lottery and I do not believe Mr. Vaughan received sufficient recognition of the work undertaken in promoting that good cause, which I have always supported and still do, despite some of the comments I shall make today.
When I was a Minister I instigated the Football Trust by persuading the football pools companies to allocate a large sum of money from their "Spot the Ball" competition. That created the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, both of which have done excellent work. I am also a director of Wembley Stadium which hopes, in due course, to see some of the lottery money, though it is taking a long time to arrive and for the Government to make up their mind about the question of a national stadium. I predict that we may get an answer to that question any time now.
I want to declare an interest of personal involvement in a lot of charity work. I happen to be the president of CRAB (Cancer Research in Birmingham) which raised £1 million for cancer research over the past two or three years. My experience is that it is extremely hard work to persuade large numbers of people to sell badges, take out collecting tins and write to firms to obtain donations. I am therefore well aware of the impact there has been on that organisation. My last interest is that I am chairman of the Birmingham bid for the Academy of Sport. I do not know whether or not we shall win; if we do there is £100 million of lottery money on offer for it and I should therefore declare that interest.
My objective in raising this matter was to find the answer to the question why the decision was made to hold a second weekly lottery draw. Parliament was never told that there might be a second weekly lottery
1298
draw. Parliament was not consulted after the decision was taken which affects so many interests, including the betting industry—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his seat—which I had hoped to include in my title but which seems to have got lost on the way.
Why has the Secretary of State been overruled? She appeared before the Select Committee in another place and in answer to a direct question clearly said that she could see no reason why we should have a second weekly draw. Within weeks she was overruled, presumably by the Prime Minister. Why—most important of all—have the affected parties not been consulted? When the Government take a step like this it is usual to make sure that all affected parties are given a hearing so that they can explain their interests and say how such a decision may affect them. No such courtesy was granted to them on this occasion.
With respect to the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, we know the answer to the question before the debate begins; before I speak and before the Minister speaks. The Prime Minister spoke on this matter last Friday in his constituency. The Birmingham Post of Saturday, 16th November, reported that the Prime Minister defended the mid-week lottery due to start next year and said that he did not see why the "nanny state" should stop it. So there is going to be a mid-week lottery, "I, the Prime Minister, have spoken"; and all the interests concerned can get lost in the thought that they are trying to sponge on the nanny state. It was a regrettable comment.
I have heard from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations which represents all the charities—there are over 125,000 in this country. Most of these charities are bound to be affected, without consultation, by a second weekly lottery. They estimate that the loss to charities already suffered because of the first lottery amounts to £350 million in 1995. That figure is calculated as a result of a very detailed NOP survey. Although some of the large charities which depend on covenants and fixed donations are not as badly hit, what is revealed by the survey is that those charities which depend on raffles, street and door-to-door collections have suffered the most. The income from raffles is down 16 per cent.; from street collecting and from door-to-door collections the figure is down by 8 per cent.
What has the Prime Minister to say to them and the thousands of people who volunteer to stand rattling their tins making collections? He said, "You can spend more time in the snow and the rain, but do not expect to make any appeal to us, the nanny state, in order to help you. Why should the cry of despair from the charities produce any response, and especially why should they expect to be consulted?" I have great regard for the Prime Minister, but I am sorry to say that I consider his comments are a calculated insult; namely, that when charities make their appeal they are appealing to the nanny state.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has written about the impact of a second draw and stated,
"A second weekly draw will further drain away funds from other forms of charitable fund raising, in particular charities reliant on traditional forms of fund raising, namely street collections … raffles and ticket sales".
That is the point that I have been making on their behalf. It is astonishing that no thought has been given to any of their considerations bearing in mind the thousands of volunteers who give up their time to make the wonderful voluntary work of this country so successful.
Then there is the question of the football pools. Their income is down 40 per cent. I also include the spot-the-ball pools. The football pools organisation tell me that they estimate a further drop in income this year of 20 per cent., which will put in great jeopardy the magnificent work that they are doing in restoring our football grounds and other works. The Football Trust has a shortfall of £35 million if it is fully to implement the Taylor report on football ground safety. I shall not say much about The Foundation for Sport and the Arts because the deputy chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is here and no doubt he will tell us about the situation there. I understand that at its peak that organisation was receiving £1.4 million a week and that figure has now been reduced to £700,000 a week. The secretary to the trustees, Mr. Grattan Endicott, tells me,
"You will readily appreciate that a mid-week lottery will provide intense competition to the pools just when they are picking up the coupons each week. The benefits of their recent marketing efforts will be damaged and their finances would he in no condition to mount an extended defence to their (much reduced) market share. Where a further reduction in pool betting duty was a crucial need it now becomes an exercise in emergency relief for a storm-battered industry".
Those are very wise words. To put the matter in my own way, and not referring to the nanny state all the time, it ill becomes the Prime Minister to tell the pools industry to stop whingeing. That is really what he is saying. That industry is entitled to feel aggrieved.
I welcome the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who will no doubt tell us about the horse racing industry. It is a very important industry and I personally support its case. It is an industry which gives great pleasure to millions of people. It now finds itself in a difficult state. It has a legitimate concern, which I hope the Government will listen to. In all these matters, although the Prime Minister appears to be off-putting, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will show more imagination next week when he produces his Budget.
The questions for the Government are these: will the second weekly lottery reduce the pools tax? Will it reduce the betting tax? How do the Government intend to protect football, sports, arts, racing and especially the charities, from the proven effects of a second weekly lottery? But the nanny state is not dead. We all know that the Prime Minister deserves a great deal of credit for getting the national lottery going, but when his pet scheme is under threat because of a drop in income, particularly the danger to the scratch card scheme, at a stroke the Prime Minister invokes the nanny state
1300
without any consultation. The state will agree to a second weekly lottery and the problems will presumably then be solved.
There are other matters of concern such as addiction, which is a moral question. I believe that the Government have a duty to address it. I declare another interest. I spend £5 a week on the lottery. I make a further declaration: I have won five amounts of £10 on the National Lottery. But now I am put in a position which faces millions of people. If we have a second weekly lottery and we already have our numbers, do we have to double our stake to £10 in case the numbers come up in midweek when one may not have backed them? That is a clear incitement to addiction.
Although I am against a second lottery, I have a suggestion and I hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply. Let us have a different kind of second lottery. Instead of having the same numbers 1 to 49 which apply to Saturday, will the Government and the regulator consider having the numbers 50 to 99 on Wednesday, so that we do not all feel compelled to stick to our numbers? It seems to me that that is a rational way to tackle this matter. I hope that that suggestion finds some favourable response.
Then there is the performance of the regulator, Mr. Peter Davis, before the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Robert Sheldon compared his unfavourable performance as the regulator of the National Lottery when set against the performance of all the other public service regulators who had appeared before the committee. Mr. Alan Williams made some scathing comments about the way in which the regulatory regime had allowed Camelot to make a windfall profit of £7 million in a year on uncollected prizes. If the uncollected prizes were paid over to good causes, as we all want, it beats me why Camelot should be allowed to keep the interest. That is a matter that ought to be looked into. The National Audit Office has also complained about this matter as regards the £135 million shortfall in prize payouts with Camelot keeping the interest. So, the performance of the regulator is something that requires attention.
There is also growing concern about the difference in procedures between the English Sports Council and the Welsh Sports Council. I should like to know why, because it is certainly unjustified. In England the local authorities and the sports governing bodies are not allowed to have a say in decisions about lottery payments. What happens in Wales is totally contrary to that. There, the local authorities and the sports governing bodies are seen as having a great role to play.
There is also the question of increasing bureaucracy. It is one year ago next week since I spoke at a conference of the CCPR, drawing attention to the decision not to help St. Andrew's Church, Handsworth. That church is in an ethnic area where there is great poverty and unemployment. The church was told that it could not have a grant and was asked questions about its endowments and investments. As anybody who knows Handsworth will recognise, they were ludicrous questions to ask there. As a result of that intervention, the church was told that it would have a grant, but here

1301
we are, tone year later, and it has not yet received a penny although we hear that the National Lottery is supposed to be getting on with things. We need more decisions to be taken regionally—and they certainly need to be taken more speedily. I hope that the Minister will look into that point.
If I am to make a rounded assessment of the National Lottery I must say a word in praise of the Government's new initiative. I have mentioned the National Academy for Sport. Although I have some difficulties with some of the details, in essence it is a good idea which should be welcomed. A week or so ago funding was announced for our top sports people to give them an income on which to base their careers. However, there are still some problems. Birmingham and Sheffield, for example, have spent millions of pounds of their ratepayers' money on building first-class sports facilities. They have not had a penny from the lottery for that. That raises the question of when there will be some revenue funding to match the capital requirements. I was once told by a Treasury official, "Always remember, Minister, that every capital project has a revenue consequence", but I believe that if Birmingham and Sheffield have used money from their ratepayers' pockets, the Government should at least help them with revenue funding.
I have noted the time, so I turn finally to the question of our inner cities losing out because capital grants are not at the moment enabling local authorities and schools to be supported. Long leases should attract capital grants otherwise inner cities lose out. I hope that the Minister will look at that point also. More importantly, however, in view of the things that I have thought it necessary to say, I hope that the Minister will think it right to have a thorough-going review of the working of the National Lottery, which most of us wish to continue to support. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on raising this important matter today and on doing so with the broad scope and in the style which I have known for many years. I am delighted to see that he has lost none of his touch of years ago. However, I hope that a bust-up with a Select Committee of another place is not necessarily in itself grounds for criticism, as I had one myself just a few days ago.
We are delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is to make his maiden speech in a few moments' time. I wish him well in that endeavour and hope that it will be the first of many speeches in this House. One's first speech here always has some tricky moments, but I am sure that the noble Earl will acquit himself extremely well.
I have no objection to the National Lottery. Indeed, I recognise that many good and important projects are developing from lottery funds and I wish them well. However, like most things in life, there is a price and it is on some aspects of that price that I wish to comment today. By comparison with the noble Lord, Lord
1302
Howell, I feel a certain inadequacy in terms of a lack of interests to declare. However, as some of your Lordships will know, I am the chairman of the British Horseracing Board and it is to the impact of the National Lottery on the great national sport and industry of racing that I wish to draw attention this afternoon. Lest any of your Lordships view the link between the terms of the Motion and horseracing as a tenuous one, perhaps I may reassure you that there are within racing a whole number of trusts, notably the Racecourse Holdings Trust and the Animal Health Trust, which receive support from the horserace betting levy, which has been very badly hit by the lottery.
The introduction in November 1994 of the lottery with only a single weekly draw had a serious effect on betting turnover and thus on the betting levy, which constitutes one of racing's most important income streams. In October this year a report by the Henley Centre showed that in 1995 levy income was £5.4 million or 10 per cent. below what it would have been but for the introduction of the lottery—money which will never be recovered. That same report showed that, compared to what would have been the case without the National Lottery, 400 betting shops had closed; 3,400 jobs were lost; overall government revenues fell by over £82 million or 10 per cent.; and betting shop profits declined by £52 million or nearly 35 per cent. Betting shop closures give rise to the risk of illegal gambling, and turnover, once lost, is unlikely to be recovered, at least in full.
The Government have been good to racing in many ways. The Chancellor's welcome decision last November to cut betting duty by 1 per cent. from last March appeared to have helped to stabilise the situation this year, but even before the mid-week lottery draw was announced last month, racing had made a cogent case to the Chancellor for a further reduction in betting duty of 1.75 per cent., allowing the punters' deduction to be reduced by a further 1 per cent. to 8 per cent. and for a direct transfer from betting duty to betting levy of 0.75 per cent. The resultant yield to racing of some £33 million should, we have proposed, be mainly used to provide for a significant injection of additional prize money—additional prize money which is desperately needed to enable us to attract adequate investment in ownership domestically, to maintain the quality of our bloodstock and to compete effectively internationally. All five Derby winners between 1991 and 1995 have been exported to Japan, where the prize money structure can support much higher nomination fees.
The average race in Japan has a first prize of something like £170,000, whereas for a similar race in this country the first prize is about £5,000, so we should not be surprised that Japan can afford to buy the best bloodstock in the world. Unless our prize money levels can be made more competitive with those in other major racing countries, there will inevitably be serious long-term damage to our racing and breeding industry. I do not talk of sudden disaster, but of a steady, long-term decline which I believe to be totally unacceptable.

1303
The mid-week lottery cannot but have a further depressing effect on betting turnover and the levy and reinforces an already overwhelming case for another duty cut. The Henley Centre report, to which I referred just now, concluded that, if expansion of the National Lottery has a similar effect on bookmaking as the current level of sales has had, for each additional 10 per cent. in lottery sales, gross turnover would fall by a further 0.8 per cent., the levy would be hit once again and betting industry profitability would be reduced by over £7 million. The Henley Centre further concluded that an expansion of the National Lottery of around 40 per cent. would completely eliminate the beneficial impact of last March's duty cut. I hope that the Treasury, the Department of National Heritage and the Home Office will liaise closely to ensure that the effects of the mid-week draw are properly and regularly monitored.
I congratulate the Government on the success of the National Lottery, but that success comes at a price in other sectors of the economy. I take this opportunity to send a last message to the Chancellor. The racing and betting industries employ over 100,000 people. In 1995 racing and breeding employed the equivalent of one in eight agricultural workers. It had a turnover of £600 million plus, and it generated tax revenues approaching £500 million. It employed assets which exceeded £2 billion. All of that will be at great risk if the over-taxation of betting and the consequences of the under-funding of racing are not tackled urgently and decisively. The inevitable negative impact of next year's mid-week lottery must be pre-empted by the introduction of a more level fiscal playing field next Tuesday. I strongly urge the Chancellor to recognise the case that we have made.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing this subject in your Lordships' Chamber.
In 1992 I retired from the Royal Navy in which I had spent the last 10 years based in London in the Ministry of Defence and in Washington DC working on naval intelligence. I declare an interest. I now work for the Royal British Legion, the leading ex-service charity, and I am responsible for the promotion of fund-raising and the co-ordination of welfare grants-in-aid in Essex.
What is the likely impact on charities of the first midweek lottery draw which will take place on 5th February? Foreign lotteries have conducted successful second draws in the short term but in the longer term have experienced a steady decline in sales. For every pound spent on a lottery ticket, 28 pence is divided equally among the five good causes: arts, sports, heritage, millennium and charities. It is estimated that the midweek draw will increase ticket sales by about 20 per cent. Experience overseas suggests that the split will be approximately 55 per cent. on the Saturday draw and 45 per cent. on the Wednesday draw.
Charity Aid Foundation has reported recently that, on the whole, donations have risen. The foundation admits, however, that matters may look less rosy as far as
1304
concerns contributions to street, house-to-house and static collections. To give the example of the Royal British Legion poppy appeal in 1995, the remembrancetide collections amounted to £16.3 million, which was an increase of £1.1 million (about 7 per cent.) over the previous year. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has been consistently critical of the impact of the lottery. It points to a 10 per cent. shortfall in individual giving and states that this is evidence that money previously given to charities is being redirected to the purchase of lottery tickets. It is also concerned that it may lead to a net loss of over £90 million for voluntary groups. Voluntary income growth has shown higher profits from charity shops and bigger corporate and trust donations. This has enabled charities to increase their income in the second quarter of this year by about 6.6 per cent., but local fund-raising income, on which many charities rely heavily, has stagnated.
The lottery neatly clobbers charities from both directions. On the one hand, it hoovers up all of the £1 coins that might otherwise have ended up in collection tins. On the other hand, it also allows the public to make a donation with the expectation that they may win something rather larger in return. It is a fact that the lottery is played mainly by those who can afford the least but give the most. Religious organisations believe that it is an inherently bad thing to play the gambling habit and it compromises the moral standards of charities. Others have expressed rather more worldly concerns about the extent to which spending on lottery tickets eats into their income, and the evident public confusion about how much lottery money actually goes to good causes.
The impact of the lottery is based on limited and somewhat anecdotal information. Some charities, particularly those in the medical and social welfare fields, claim that their fund-raising has been seriously damaged as the lottery's fortunes have risen. Others say that, on the contrary, their income has been given a boost by lottery mania and point to the way that charity scratch cards have piggy-backed onto the Camelot and charity instant scratch card market. UK Charity Lotteries Limited, which is the largest operator of charity scratch cards, has seen its sales rise. The Royal British Legion's scratch card, which was launched in 1995, is a very successful example. There were four top prizes of £100,000, four million tickets were sold and £800,000 was earned for the poppy appeal, which subsequently provided revenue for the legion's central benevolent fund.
Many charities are victims of the lottery, but the overall picture is very mixed. Research has been carried out which shows that 69 per cent. of lottery players say that they are giving the same amount to charity as before. Sixteen per cent. are giving more, and approximately 15 per cent. are giving less. I believe that the motivation to play the lottery is nothing to do with giving but is to do with winning, and that it is an increasing addiction. While the Charities Board sits on a pot of millions, many less efficient charities will go to

1305
the wall. With about 4,000 new charities being launched each year, the situation resembles a pond of spawning fish in which the water level is dropping.
Finally, a second weekly draw will mean that those charities most affected will need to adopt a more proactive fund raising campaign if they are to survive. It may be that the first political party to make the charity sector a major issue can find itself a winner.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, in nearly 40 years in this House I have never before had the opportunity to compliment a maiden speaker. To that extent, I too am a maiden. The noble Earl makes my task easy. He made an outstandingly good maiden speech which was fluently delivered. He spoke with deep knowledge of the subject. His involvement in charities in general, especially the Royal British Legion, is obvious. The Royal British Legion is a body for which we all in this House have the greatest respect. I believe that the noble Earl also has some qualification as a participator in the lottery, and is even a modest winner. I wish him all the best in his efforts to win the jackpot. I also hope that he will address us again on many occasions.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject and also for his kind words about the Football Trust. I should declare an interest in that I have been chairman of the trust since 1979.
I start by quoting from a speech made by Mark Antony, as reported by William Shakespeare:
"If you have tears, prepare to shed them now".
A few lines further on in the speech one sees:
"I am no orator, as Brutus is:
But as you know me all, a plain, blunt man".
The plain, blunt truth is that the Football Trust has seen its income reduced by over 50 per cent. since the lottery came into being. Unlike the charities mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, we have no access to lottery funds.
I shall confine myself to a few remarks on the position of the Football Trust. Our story began in 1975 when, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the Football Grounds Improvements Trust was established, set up by the late Cecil Moores of Littlewoods Pools and, to his great credit, by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Its purpose was to help professional football with the cost of implementing the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. Then, in 1979, the Football Trust itself was formed, with the primary object of tackling hooliganism, which was a very great problem within grounds at the time. Both bodies were financed by a proportion of the receipts from spotting the ball, which was run by the Pool Promoters Association, now changed to Littlewoods spot the ball. Fulfilling that objective of combating hooliganism pioneered the installation of closed circuit television in all football league grounds. That has proved to be the single most important measure in the campaign against hooliganism. We can take a certain amount of credit for the fact that hooliganism within grounds is now rare.
1306
In 1989 there occurred the disaster at Sheffield Wednesday's Hillsborough ground in which 96 spectators lost their lives and 730 were injured. This led to the appointment of an inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor, and one of the most important recommendations of his report was that all football league grounds should be converted to all-seated accommodation. That entailed vast expense. To help with the considerable costs to clubs of achieving their targets the Government, in 1990, made a 2.5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty on the condition that the proceeds were to go to the Football Trust, enabling us to grant aid the objectives of the Taylor report. At that point we merged the Football Trust and the Football Grounds Improvement Trust to form a new Football Trust 1990 to fulfil our new responsibilities.
So far we have concentrated our efforts on the clubs in the premier league, the first division of the football league and the premier league in Scotland. These three bodies were all required by the report to have their grounds all seated by the start of the 1994–95 season and we therefore had to give them priority in grant aid. We have now allocated some £91 million towards projects which have cost in total some £322 million.
Thanks to our substantial contribution we can take pride in the number and quality of our top football grounds. The hugely successful Euro '96 competition staged at eight host venues was testimony to that. Now we are determined that our efforts in respect of the lower divisions should be as successful, and this is where we are concentrating all our efforts on the smaller clubs. They have substantial, although of course less costly, needs but their means are much less, and that requires higher levels of grant aid in terms of percentages.
Just when we had reached this crucial stage we now face a crisis. This is entirely due to the run-away success of the National Lottery which has caused an enormous fall in the income of the pools companies. Since November 1994 the pools industry has lost between 40 and 50 per cent. of its business and the result for the income that we receive has been disastrous.
Before the lottery we received an annual income from the reduction in pool betting duty of some £22.5 million and from spotting the ball £14 million. This year the most we can hope for is from pool betting duty £13.5 million, as opposed to £22.5 million, and from spot the ball £4 million, as opposed to £14 million before the lottery. Next year the most optimistic assessments are down again to £11 million from the reduction in pool betting duty and £3 million from spot the ball. So your Lordships will understand why I invited you to shed tears at the beginning of this speech.
It seems likely that our total income over the 10-year period from 1990 to 2000 will now be about £167 million, against the original estimate of £200 million, a shortfall of £33 million, although if we were to implement the Taylor report in full we would probably require some £53 million to see the whole task through. Now it has been agreed that the lottery is to introduce a mid-week draw which will undoubtedly further reduce the income of the pools companies and our own income.

1307
We recognise the enormous benefits brought to many good causes by the lottery and we acknowledge its success. But we look on ourselves as a good cause too—the vital cause of spectator safety at football grounds. Despite an excellent first five years, our originally agreed aims are now at risk.
We fully support the case made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Pools Promoter Association. It does seem to us unfair that the pools should pay betting duty at 26.5 per cent. and the National Lottery at only 12 per cent. A further reduction in pool betting duty would help the pools companies to consolidate their business and thus help prevent further decline in our Football Trust income.
We have put the case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and we also seek an extension of time to reach our objectives. An extra three years on the same basis as at present until 2003 would restore our income to what was originally expected and give us the chance to plan a redevelopment programme in conjunction with the clubs over a longer timescale. We cannot makes sensible plans with individual clubs if we are in grave doubt about our future. Such an extension might appeal to the Government as it would not require any immediate cash commitment from them.
It is often said that football is awash with money and needs no support from the Government. This is true of the clubs at the top of the premier division, but for the rest the scene is very different. The 1996 annual review of football finance made by Deloitte and Touche made some salient points. Only 20 per cent. of clubs in the football league made an operating profit; 73 per cent. of clubs still have accumulated losses; and 38 per cent. have an overall deficiency on their balance sheet. Seventy-seven per cent. of clubs have borrowings outstanding at the bank and all divisions of the football league have now incurred operating losses for the past three years.
We intend to continue to press the premier league, which has benefited most from large television contracts, to make a significant contribution to the needs of the lower divisions. Coupled with government support, this could achieve our aim of ensuring that the implementation of Taylor does not flounder and that the needs of spectator safety continue to be met throughout football.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest which I believe is well known to many Lords and was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I am the deputy chairman of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I, too, am concerned by the introduction of a second, mid-week lottery game and its negative impact upon charities and other good causes such as the foundation and the recently developed Sports Grounds Initiative.
The Foundation for Sport and the Arts was founded in July 1991 following negotiations between the football pools companies and the Treasury. We are entirely
1308
funded by donations from Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters, at the rate of 8p. in every 105p. they collect (3p. of which comes from a reduction in pool betting duty).
The object was to widen the range of good causes which the pools could fund beyond football, to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare referred. We have succeeded in our objectives beyond our expectations, and our activities are supported and applauded not just by the thousands of organisations which have benefited from our support but also by politicians in all parties. The foundation's indefatigable and able secretary, Grattan Endicott, has received hundreds of letters of support from MPs and the recipients of our grants.
So far we have dispensed nearly £300 million of grants to over 21,000 organisations, very often to those projects which would not attract the interest of the lottery and, indeed, which also fall outside the remit of those covered by the National Lottery's grant giving bodies. We have often been praised for our rapid response to applicants which is borne from the fact that we are not overburdened by complicated administrative procedures and hierarchical structures.
In the past couple of years, however, we have faced considerable funding problems as a consequence of the effect that the National Lottery has had on the football pools companies, our sole source of income. Our income is now running at little more than half its pre-lottery levels: down from £68 million in 1994 to perhaps some £41 million this year. That means that a grant above £100,000 is now most unusual and an absolute ceiling of £150,000 has had to be adopted. All my fellow trustees and I are acutely aware of how these limitations translate into disappointment and dashed hopes.
The Sports Grounds Initiative, which came into being in May last year and which we fund, is also under threat. It was set up to provide for ground safety improvements in rugby, cricket and Vauxhall conference football clubs, and is ably administered by the Football Trust. In its brief life it has already donated nearly £5.5 million to 35 clubs, ensuring that millions of spectators at sports which have hitherto not had access to funding which league football has received through the Football Trust can watch their sport in comfort and safety.
And now we are told, after no consultation whatsoever, that there is to be a mid-week lottery to take place on a Wednesday, starting in February, which will provide intense competition to the pools just when their collectors are picking up the coupons each week. The benefits of their recent marketing efforts will be damaged and their finances would be in no condition to defend their much reduced market share.
The pools companies are subject to all manner of restrictions and commercial disadvantages which ensure that the national lottery always has the upper hand: the type and timing of events appearing on coupons; payment of winnings through shops; the ability to enhance the prize fund and rollovers, to name just a few. Some of these are now the subject of a government consultation on deregulation of the pools industry, and I welcome this. But even if the deregulation process

1309
goes through unscathed after the consultation process, it may be another year before the changes come into effect—another example of too little and much too late.
The dominance of the National Lottery is a matter of great public concern. It has acquired this position through a combination of factors: by the Government abandoning long-established national policy on the non-stimulation of gambling demand; by weak and ineffective regulation; and by stifling the ability of other companies to operate their legitimate business interests, thereby damaging their and their employees' livelihood and the grant-giving bodies which depend upon them.
We have to understand the environment in which we all now operate. The lottery has been given licence to break the long-standing and socially responsible conventions not to stimulate the demand for gambling. The pools companies always adhered to this and have been careful to promote their products in such a way as to conform to such ethics. The National Lottery has now changed the rules (and the stakes) in more ways than one. Never before has there been such strong endorsement of, or commitment to, a gambling product. The rules were turned on their head under the terms of the National Lottery Act 1993 but not for any other form of soft gambling.
The result is that businesses have been hit on a significant scale and the repercussions are still being felt. Employment in the pools industry has nearly halved and business has declined by a half. As a consequence the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has received notice from Vernons that it will end its 5p. contribution from 30th November and Zetters could well take a similar decision very soon. Only a significant reduction in the rate of pools betting duty in next week's Budget could bring about a change of heart. So the foundation's future is precarious. If we are to continue to fund good causes, the pools must be given the opportunity to regain some of their business and invest in new marketing initiatives. We need to level the playing field between the lottery and the pools companies; we must reduce pool betting duty significantly to 17.5 per cent. at most and we must support the Government's proposals to deregulate the pools industry. The foundation sinks before the pools do, so we have just cause for our fears and must rely upon obtaining equitable treatment. Indeed, I can see no justification in terms of taxation for the application of any different rate of taxation to one of these operations, so similar are they in form.
Noble Lords may ask why, with so much money now going to the good causes from the lottery, it is necessary for the foundation to survive at all. First, as I have briefly described, I believe we have a good track record in our grant giving. Secondly, I think it would be highly undesirable if the lottery gained a near monopoly in giving grants and we saw the disappearance of bodies such as the foundation, the Football Trust, to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare referred, and others like the Sports Aid Foundation, which has done such valuable work in funding our elite athletes. Curiously perhaps requests for our funds have not diminished since the lottery, and this is partly because of the demand for
1310
matching funding which the lottery requires. We are happy to provide that. Our only requirement is usually that we can have a piece of the project to call our own.
Like many others, I am deeply suspicious of Camelot's motives. It is asking for a second, mid-week game because it claims to be concerned that it will not be able to reach its £9 billion target for good causes. Is this not the company that has been reporting record takings? The average weekly sale of lottery tickets is approaching £70 million. For the year ended March 1996, Camelot retained a profit of £32.7 million after paying dividends of £18.4 million.
A recent report by the Public Accounts Committee in another place noted that:
"sales to the end of September 1995 were almost 70 per cent. higher than forecast in Camelot's application",
and more recently as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, there have been press reports that Camelot is retaining £6 million in interest on unclaimed prizes. Does this sound like a company that is failing to meet its targets—whether for the nation or for itself?
I fear this second mid-week game will benefit one cause above all others: Camelot's shareholders. The damage the lottery has inflicted on the foundation and other charitable organisations cannot be underestimated. Now the lottery is being given yet another opportunity to stimulate gambling to the detriment of other sectors in the industry. I totally condemn this move and the regulator's role in this.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, from the high quality of the debate and the strong feelings that are being expressed, it is clear that we owe a considerable debt to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for initiating it. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for speaking on this subject in his excellent maiden speech. I intend to make a few more remarks.
I hesitated this morning before taking the plunge into this very deep and murky pool, the National Lottery debate, with all its turbulent currents of hot air and statistical jacuzzis. I accept that, as regards the charities, the evidence is conflicting. However, having heard the debate, I feel more confident that Camelot is making a mistake and that the public would be better off without a second lottery.
I shall confine my remarks, however, to the effects on certain charities and shall begin by saying that I acknowledge how much the voluntary sector has gained from the lottery. I have seen one figure indicating that two-thirds of all lottery benefits come to non-governmental organisations. That is only to be welcomed, as is the Government's general encouragement of the voluntary sector. I have a particular interest in the heritage and charities, including those giving help overseas, and, despite some reservations about additionality and the size of single prizes, I am pleased to see that so many smaller minority causes and organisations are now benefiting from the lottery because of the initiative of the individual boards.

1311
We all know from the press and ministerial statements that research into the effect on charities' income is ongoing and it is clear that we cannot depend on sample opinion polls. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, if there is preliminary evidence that some charity income has suffered we need to take the matter seriously, especially with regard to the smaller charities.
As has been pointed out, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations reported that there had been a 6.6 per cent. fall in charitable giving in 1993–95, while the Charities Aid Foundation claimed in May that the top 500 charities' income rose by 2 per cent. in 1994–95. The Institute of Charity Fund-raising Managers has confirmed the CAF's view that the overall impact of the lottery had been minimal, while it recognised that there was some effect on particular areas of fund-raising, such as street collections.
I have worked for many years with fund-raising charities for which street and door-to-door collections are a significant element in annual income. Like the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I can say that there is considerable concern not only about the trend shown by this admittedly limited research but about the Government's apparent unwillingness to take seriously the importance of these collections and the value of "loose change" income. Christian Aid, the official agency of the British and Irish Churches, raises £9 million each year through its long-established and highly organised campaign known as Christian Aid Week, of which more than £5 million is derived from house-to-house collections. That is more than half. That campaign has seen a 5.5 per cent. fall during its latest year.
Christian Aid has written to the Secretary of State to express concern—a concern which she herself expressed—about Camelot's decision to go ahead with the second draw even before the results of the Government's own research were known. The concern of Christian Aid, and many smaller organisations which are reliant on voluntary income as well as planned giving, is that the midweek draw is bound to affect this well tried form of fund-raising, which is often at its most successful on Wednesday and Thursday evenings. We have heard about the British Legion, but the Alexandra Rose Day also suffered a recent drastic fall in income, and possibly for the same reason. The NCVO believes that since the lottery began charities' own lottery and raffle ticket sales are down by 16 per cent. and street collections by 8 per cent.
Whatever the truth of the preliminary findings, there can be no doubt that some traditional charities are extremely vulnerable to the second draw and many people have doubts about the wisdom of introducing it so soon. Peter Davis, the Director General of the National Lottery, admitted that his decision was based on what he called "new game developments"—I would call them "hype"—and could not take account of the effects on other competing bodies. In other words, the traditional charities are being bounced by the spirit of the game.
Not only the charities but some of the players may be under pressure from the midweek draw. Oflot's own figures admit that there are people spending more than
1312
£10 a week on the lottery even in households with annual incomes of less than £4,500. At that level of income it would be surprising if there were any loose change for telephone calls, let alone charities. And yet the charities' experience is that those who are in most difficulty themselves are often the most generous contributors. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues are not in their places tonight, because there is a theological side to the argument which I am not qualified to put forward. It is the very spirit of generosity and personal involvement in the voluntary sector in all parts of the nation which should not be undermined by the urge to play the game again and again, with all the attendant false expectations which it inevitably brings.
I therefore hope that the Minister will look again at the particular case of personal giving through street and house-to-house collections. There is a distinction between the two. I also hope that he will bear in mind the suggestion of the NCVO that the Government should undertake a fundamental review of the allocation of funds to good causes. This would have the primary objective of increasing charitable funds and of making up for the overall fall in public donations as well as in areas of fund-raising which may be directly affected by the lottery. We have heard convincing cases from those involved in racing and football too. The churches and charities which have witnessed some of the less beneficial social effects of the lottery on local communities have been remarkably indulgent, even in Scotland where there has been a lot of opposition. I hope that the Government will listen to them too when they are monitoring the effects on charities of not one but two weekly draws.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing the debate. We have spoken many times on sporting matters. I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on his excellent maiden speech. We hope that we shall hear him on many more occasions. His predecessor did not speak a great deal but I am sure that the noble Earl can remedy that.
I do not know how many of your Lordships know someone who has gone to the dogs. I believe that many do. I wish to say a few words about the effects of the National Lottery on a sport which I and millions of others hold very dear; that is, greyhound racing. At the outset I must declare my interest, as I have done on many occasions in this House. I am chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board and I also sit on several charities' and trusts' boards.
According to Home Office figures, as a spectator sport greyhound racing is a little more popular than horse-racing. I know only too well the tough time it has gone through during the past year or so. Already this year we have lost tracks at Cradley Heath, Ramsgate and Sittingbourne. Middlesbrough, too, is due to close this month and threat of imminent closure hangs over Bolton, Canterbury and Hackney. That will reduce the total number of tracks from 39 to just 32—that is a decline of 18 per cent.—and who knows how long it

1313
will be before developers target other tracks with lucrative schemes to turn them into shopping centres, housing estates, carparks or whatever?
The blame for that must be attributed, at least in part, to the National Lottery. The decision to hold a second weekly draw will only magnify the difficulties that sports such as greyhound racing currently face. According to the Henley Centre, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and is a world-renowned forecasting centre—if the Government were to take no action on the level of betting duty in the forthcoming Budget—and I hope that they will—attendances will fall from the pre-lottery figure of 4.1 million to 3 million. The Government revenue will fall from £13.3 million to £9 million and the industry profitability will fall from £6.3 million to £2.6 million. I make no apology for producing various figures, because we are talking about money and money always comes in figures.
Clearly, the impact of a second weekly lottery draw, with an increase in ticket sales of 20 per cent. will add further to the woes of the sport. In recent years punters have benefited from a wide-ranging deregulation of the betting industry, thanks to the Government, but the sports on which they rely have fared adversely. I should stress that greyhound racing is not asking for any special favours from the Government but simply a recognition of the plight that it faces and the opportunity to be treated equitably with other leisure interests.
Last year, the BGRB commissioned Gerald Eve, chartered surveyors, to estimate the costs which the sport faced to meet new safety requirements contained in the Taylor report, which has already been mentioned. It calculated that greyhound racing has already spent £6.6 million in safety improvements but is still faced with a bill of an additional £4.8 million plus an annual charge of £1.1 million to keep tracks up to standard.
Unlike other sports which are eligible for lottery money or for support from bodies such as the Football Trust or the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, greyhound racing has no opportunities to secure additional funding from outside bodies. The only way that it can meet those costs is for the Government to reduce general betting duty and insist that the moneys accruing are ploughed back into the sport.
Once again, the off-course betting industry is asking the Government that any reduction in betting duty should go directly to the punter. This is what happened last year when the Chancellor cut betting duty by 1 per cent. The saving was passed on in its entirety to the punter. As a consequence, according to the bookmakers own body, BOLA, betting shop profitability increased by £27 million last year.
Yet, despite this increase in retained profitability, the betting industry short-changes the British Greyhound Racing Fund to the tune of £2 million a year—money which the Government intended to benefit greyhound racing, not the bookmakers. Back in 1992, the then Chancellor, Norman Lamont, cut betting duty by 0.25 per cent. and directed that the money accruing should be passed straight back to greyhound racing. This
1314
has not happened, as only 65 per cent. of the possible tally is given over to the greyhound industry, and that is from about 200 bookmakers out of a possible 2,000.
The problem is that, unlike horseracing, which has a statutory levy, no such mechanism exists for greyhound racing. It has to make do with bookmakers giving voluntary contributions to the Greyhound Racing Fund and that is sometimes not easy to pursue. Greyhound racing now desperately needs government assistance to allow the industry to compete on a level playing field with other sports. This year, particularly in the light of the decision to introduce a second weekly National Lottery draw, it is imperative that any reduction in General Betting Duty should be specifically directed to the greyhound racing industry—and I hope that the Chancellor will make it clear that bookmakers have a duty to pay out. After all, it is not their money. This will be used to upgrade facilities and stadia, as well as improving the security and integrity of the sport, which is vital if it is to survive and prosper. It will benefit all those involved with greyhound racing from trainers to race-track owners, from kennel-hands to the race-going public, as well as bookmakers, who rely on a healthy and vigorous sport for the profitability of their industry.
This year the British Greyhound Racing Board has asked for a 1 per cent. reduction in General Betting Duty, coupled with a request for the Government to put in place a statutory or other mechanism to ensure that all the monies intended to benefit greyhound racing do so. These two measures would go a long way to offset some of the harm posed to the sport by a second weekly lottery draw, and put us on the same footing as horseracing. Henley estimates that this would increase attendances by nearly 13 per cent.; increase customer revenues by 15 per cent., increase employment by 10 per cent. and increase the Government's own revenue from greyhound racing by almost 25 per cent.
Last week I had the pleasure of leading a delegation to meet the Exchequer Secretary to explain our case in person, and I know that many others have done that. He listened very carefully to what we said and gave us a sympathetic hearing. I left feeling optimistic that the Government have taken on board our concerns, but we must now wait and see what happens in the Budget next week as regards what they do about betting duty. I stress that this is a very important issue for the greyhound racing industry and one that is particularly close to my heart and that of the millions who love the sport.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I really must thank my noble friend Lord Howell for introducing this important debate and speaking with such authority. Also, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on his impressive and enlightening speech.
I begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Newall, that some of us do indeed have experience of going to the dogs. For myself, I was briefly a bookie's assistant at Earls Barton in the mid-1940s and matters have been downhill ever since. I begin also with a conclusion from this debate: that nobody in this House today has supported the decision of the Government—in other

1315
words, the Prime Minister—to hold a second lottery draw. Nor, I hear, did the Secretary of State. There is no respectable justification for it.
Looking at this matter more generally, we are witnessing a boom in gambling in Britain. We are in danger of creating a bonanza society where citizens see that the purpose of life is to win the big one, have the six numbers come up rather than the rewards and satisfaction of work. Over the past 30 years, changes in the dominant political and social philosophies in our society have certainly encouraged that mentality. The loosening of life styles in the 1960s and 1970s, which I must say I both supported and enjoyed, prepared the ground for a more permissive approach to gambling. The Thatcherite emphasis on the priority of short-term financial gain over all other considerations has elevated materialism in general and gambling in particular.
The Tory commitment to deregulation in the past decade has also progressively weakened the previous prevailing principle of government that gambling should be controlled and never stimulated. But the lottery is the single biggest step in the expansion of gambling in Britain. With it, the Government and the regulator are there to encourage maximum gambling. Gambling is now a government-inspired, publicly-encouraged, economic good. For many people, the lottery has hijacked hope.
The lottery has also very particularly led to the expansion of other gambling because other forms of gambling demand and are given deregulation and expansion to compensate for the damage to them caused by the advantages given to the lottery. Therefore, we now have in this country a gambling spiral or an upward ratchet effect. The Government have now again moved up the ratchet or the spiral with the second draw and, having given the lottery that second weekly draw, they will again have to compensate the casinos with less regulation, the pools with numbers betting on other sports, the betting shops with betting on the lottery—I support that—and the Tote with betting, I imagine, on everything. And so it goes on.
The Labour Party and I in this House did not oppose setting up the lottery; nor do I now. There is not the least prospect that it would be ended. However, we have been concerned that it gives too much profit to the monopoly operator; it distributes too much good cause money to the already privileged; that it needs to be more accessible and accountable; and above all, that it is doing great damage to disadvantaged competitors—to the betting shops, the racing industry and its levy with hundreds of betting shops closing and millions of pounds lost to the great racing industry. In that context I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said. I believe that the Chancellor must cut betting duty in the Budget. The lottery is damaging charity revenues, especially those of small and local charities. I agree with all that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said in that regard. The NCVO estimates that it has lost £350 million since the start of the lottery.
Ironically, the lottery also damages the charity sources of matching funds to whom the beneficiaries of lottery grants apply for funds to match their lottery
1316
grants. There is a vicious circle here. The beneficiaries of lottery grants are required to provide matching funds, but the often charitable sources and foundations they approach for matching funds are seeing their funds reduced because of the lottery. The Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts have suffered and that has damaged and reduced the fine work they have carried out. We have heard what the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Brabazon of Tara, have said about that. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, my noble friend Lord Howell, the noble Lord, Lord Newall, and other noble Lords have presented an impressive array of facts and figures on the damage that is being done by the lottery. I do not propose to repeat those figures.
Perhaps here I should declare an interest as an unpaid director of a racecourse, as the co-owner of a jumping horse which has never jumped in public, and as the president of a charity concerned with gambling addiction and rehabilitation. At this point I wish to stress my concern—this was mentioned by my noble friend—as regards the dangers inherent in increased gambling addiction. I do not refer here to the small punter, as ate many noble Lords opposite and many other noble Lords including my noble friend and myself. I refer to problem gambling, which is growing and has terrible consequences for individuals and for families. All the evidence across the world shows that as gambling increases, so does the scale of gambling addiction. Gambling addiction evolves from soft to harder forms, from the lottery draw, to scratch cards, to slot machines, and, finally, to instant video gambling.
Gambling addiction particularly affects the young. There is evidence that one in five of children in the 12 to 15 age group participates illegally in the lottery. A second weekly draw would double the danger posed to children. We should note that gambling addicts are just as sick as alcoholics or heroin addicts. My main point is that all the anxieties that I and other noble Lords have mentioned would be magnified if there were a second weekly lottery draw. The damage done would be that much greater.
As I have said, initially we supported the lottery, while waiting to hear the results of monitoring and analysing of the risks. Now the Government are irresponsibly increasing gambling on the lottery and thereby increasing the damage that is done by it before they have acquired any real knowledge of the consequences of that. When the Bill was going through this House I persuaded the Government to agree to monitor the impact and damage in two areas: the racing industry and charities. I have seen little evidence of the results of that monitoring and research.
I have also called publicly for more research into the impact of gambling on individuals, families, social groups and social behaviour. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned in his excellent speech, we should note that the cost of this mathematically bad bet on the lottery falls disproportionately on the poor. The poorest 30 per cent. spend roughly twice as large a proportion of their income on the lottery as do the richest. We need to conduct research into all these matters, but I see little evidence of that. The Home Office should be doing more in that regard. In my view Camelot, which

1317
represents the largest "creaming off' organisation of our generation, should be required to spend a fixed percentage of its huge profits on research into the impact of gambling. The gambling industry should finance more research. However, that is not happening. It is irresponsible of the Government dramatically to increase the amount of gambling on the lottery when we do not know the personal and social consequences of that. Under a smokescreen of raising more money for good causes, the Government are encouraging gambling in our society, increasing Camelot's profits and increasing the Treasury's tax take. That is what it is all about.
Finally, there is the scandal of additionality, especially in the arts. The lottery is being used as a smokescreen to disguise serious cuts in grants to the arts. Lottery money is used to cover cuts in direct funding, but the lottery grants do not replace that funding. For example, 33 regional theatres have a deficit of £8 million. Further cuts in Arts Council funding that are expected in the coming Budget will result in several theatres closing down. We have our great museums such as the British Museum which, for the lack of £5 million a year, may be forced to charge customers. The lottery does not touch or rescue them but it is the Treasury's excuse for cutting their funding. A second weekly draw would allow the Government to make further excuses to cut more direct funding and thereby kill off more theatres.
As I said, we have supported the principle of the lottery so far. We are not killjoys. I am a paid up member of the Cavalier Tendency. We do not propose to abolish it although we may soon have serious news for the operator and the regulator when, shortly, we launch our policy document. Like my noble friend Lord Howell I question the wisdom of holding a second weekly draw, as has every speaker in this debate. It is wrong to stimulate gambling with no knowledge of, or without having done research on, the consequences for charities, the racing industry, betting, the pools, greyhound racing, and particularly the consequences for personal and social behaviour and especially gambling addiction.
I understand what is going on; it is a political matter. The Government, having no other policy successes, are desperate to trumpet the success of the lottery. According to the Government, the greater the amount of gambling, the greater is the success of the lottery. It is time we had a government who could do better for Britain than that. With the lottery, as with the Government, enough is enough.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as I am sure is the whole House, for initiating this debate so shortly after the National Lottery has celebrated its second birthday. The 104th draw was made last Saturday and the official anniversary took place on 14th November. Many points have been raised;
1318
I shall try to cover them all. I shall cover many, but as regards those that I do not, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to them.
I should like to thank all contributors to this evening's debate. I wish to pay particular tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for such an excellent maiden speech. I am sure that we all much look forward to the contributions he will make to the future business of this House.
I should like to touch briefly on three aspects of the success of the lottery: first, its success in its own terms; secondly in terms of the funds it has raised for the good causes; and thirdly, the extraordinary way in which it has embedded itself in the psyche of the nation during its two year life.
No one can dispute that the lottery has been enormously successful in its own terms with sales far greater than anyone predicted when its licence was awarded and awards more widespread and larger than had been dreamt of. Total sales are fast approaching £10 billion and an independent study by Terri la Fleur, a leading world lottery expert, has shown the UK lottery to be the most successful and efficient in the world. The midweek draw which is due to be launched in the new year, and to which I shall return, will build on that success.
As I have already mentioned it has also been a huge success measured by the amount it has raised for good causes. To date, a total of £2.7 billion has been raised for sport, the arts, charities, heritage and the millennium with the distributing bodies making nearly 9,500 awards to nearly 11,000 projects. The availability of money of this kind for these sectors over such a short time is truly revolutionary.
Another remarkable development is the way in which the lottery has already become ingrained in our collective consciousness. Camelot estimates that 65 per cent. of the adult population regularly play the lottery and that around 90 per cent. have played at some time. There can hardly be a dinner party or pub the length or breadth of the land where it is not one of the main topics of conversation.
Much has been said, both before the introduction of the lottery and since, about the effects of the lottery on charities' incomes. Indeed, much has been said on the matter by noble Lords today. Concern was expressed when the 1993 Act was passing through Parliament that it would lead to a decline in their income. Because of that the Government undertook to monitor charities' incomes before and after the lottery began to analyse what changes, if any, took place in order to identify the reasons for them.
That research, involving the analysis of a large and representative sample of charities' accounts, is being carried out in conjunction with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. It began earlier this year, and interim results are expected in the spring.
Nonetheless, there has been no shortage of claims that the lottery has caused a decline in personal charitable giving. Such claims are not, however, substantiated by the available evidence. The true picture is mixed, with some studies of public surveys indicating a fall in some

1319
types of donations—most notably via purchases from charity shops—and others showing an increase in other types of donations; for instance, unplanned giving. And in any event have any changes which may have occurred during the life of the lottery been caused by it, or have they merely occurred at the same time?
The only reliable conclusion which one can draw now is that it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions about individuals' giving to charities based on what people say they give. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, albeit expressed in a slightly different way.
To put it briefly, there is no evidence that the lottery has led to a decline in giving to charity. What, however, is quite clear is that the lottery has generated a brand new source of money for good causes. That is the money distributed by the distribution bodies of which about 85 per cent., representing over £2 billion, has gone to charities in the first two years.
The National Lottery Charities Board alone has made more than 4,700 grants worth over £319 million to charities and voluntary organisations working primarily with young people and those facing disadvantage, and it will shortly be announcing further awards to organisations concerned with health, disability and care. In response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I can confirm that the allocation of lottery funds to good causes will be reviewed once in the lifetime of every Parliament.
In addition to the grants made by the board, well over half of the grants made by the other 10 lottery distributors across the United Kingdom have gone to charities and voluntary organisations. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has estimated that from lottery ticket sales in 1995 alone, over £890 million will go to charities and voluntary organisations. Add to that the partnership funding which all the lottery distributors, except the National Lottery Charities Board, require and it is clear that, whatever else the lottery may or may not have done for charities, it has created a new, very rich, source of money which they can apply for in pursuance of their objects. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I wish to emphasise that the National Lottery Charities Board does not require matching funding; and that other distributors accept funding in kind, for example, voluntary effort in the building of a capital scheme. There is no evidence of problems with obtaining matching funding.
I should also like to put on record the achievement of Camelot, which has often been pilloried, quite unfairly, for its part in successfully setting up and running the lottery. It would be fair to criticise it had it made a mess of it; but to castigate it for doing the opposite is surely perverse. Noble Lords may be aware that the company has recently announced the setting up of the Camelot Foundation with an initial injection of £5 million. The foundation is expected to make Camelot one of the most generous corporate donors in the UK measuring its donations as a percentage of its profits, and is in addition to the support which it has already given to over 300 charitable groups for a total of over £1.5m.
1320
I am also aware of concerns over the effect of the coming into being of the lottery on the football pools industry and thus the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust. It is clearly a matter for each individual whether he or she wishes to spend money on the pools or on the lottery, or anything else, for that matter.
Since the advent of the lottery appears to have persuaded some of those who previously played the pools to abandon them in favour of the lottery, I am aware that the foundation and the trust will receive a pro rata reduced amount of money to distribute.
Against that background, a number of significant concessions have already been made to the pools industry, in response to its concerns about the impact of the lottery on them. Not least of those is the reduction in pool betting duty by 11 per cent. The ban on broadcast advertising by pools companies has also been lifted. The Government look forward to evidence that the pools companies will make use of these changes to regulations.
In the case of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts—I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for his explanation of the foundation's work—of course, its beneficiaries' loss is far outweighed by the gain represented by the sums which the lottery is raising for sport and the arts. Hence these activities are not collectively themselves disadvantaged per se by the decreased turnover of the pools. The Government are not aware of any serious threat to the long term future of the foundation which should still serve to distribute albeit reduced sums to sport and the arts.
In the case of the Football Trust—1 have listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lord Aberdare—the Government remain committed to ensuring the Taylor Report work is completed by the end of the 1999–2000 season on schedule. In May of this year the Football Trust benefited from a further 0.5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty which should be worth up to £3 million a year. The reduction in pool betting duty concession for the implementation of Taylor will cease in March 2000. The future of the trust after this date is a matter for the trustees and the football industry. The Government also look to the football authorities to ensure that the vastly increased revenue that the game is now receiving from television and other commercial sources is distributed to enable clubs in all divisions to meet Taylor on schedule. I am sure that your Lordships will support this, and I know that the Premier League is considering help. Any further reduction in pool betting duty is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom many of the messages have been addressed this evening. Indeed, I feel that I stand here as a surrogate for him—except as regards the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who seems to know more about the plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than possibly even he himself knows.
Concerns have also been voiced by my noble friends Lord Wakeham and Lord Newall about the effect which the lottery has had on betting and consequently on horse-racing and greyhound racing. There have been calls for the Government to allow sidebetting on the

1321
lottery to help alleviate those effects. The Government are firmly against sidebetting on the lottery which destroyed the last national lottery we had in this country, because it will reduce the turnover of the lottery and thus the amount raised for the good causes. Evidence from Ireland supports this argument. If such a reduction occurred Camelot would, no doubt, seek to introduce new games. This is likely to precipitate a ratchet effect with both bookmakers and Camelot seeking to outdo each other. In turn this is likely to encourage people to gamble who would not otherwise do so. Allowing sidebetting would blur the distinction between the lottery and other harder forms of gambling. Bringing them closer together is also likely to encourage people to gamble who would not otherwise do so.
I am anxious to be quite clear that while the lottery may have reduced the betting industry's turnover to some extent, proper quantification is unclear and is the subject of debate among economists. Moreover, we must not overlook the changes that have been taking place in the industry, for reasons entirely unconnected with the lottery.
The nature of the lottery is that it is gambling based on the selection of seven randomly selected numbers. This is in contrast to the backing of horses and greyhounds, which, if successful, is usually based on a careful appraisal of factors such as form and breeding. What is interesting about the preliminary analysis of changes in punters' behaviour in betting on horses is that the kind of ill-informed flutter characteristic of, for instance, the Grand National is apparently unaffected.
The betting industry therefore appears to be facing problems in an area of its activities which would seem least susceptible to competition from the lottery. Moreover, in any event, surely it is a matter for the punter to bet on what he wants.
Of course, one of the characteristics of betting on horses and greyhounds in this country is that a proportion of the stake placed is handed over to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the British Greyhound Racing Board respectively for the benefit of the sports concerned. Clearly, therefore, a decline in this kind of betting has a direct and damaging impact on these industries.
When faced with such a problem, surely the right approach is to identify the specifics of the difficulty, as noble Lords have done this evening, rather than indiscriminately cross-subsidise horse-racing and greyhound racing from other forms of betting if the public changes its betting habits.
I now turn to the question of the lottery regulator and the mid-week draw. Under the terms of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the licensing of a mid-week draw is a matter for the director-general of the National Lottery, not the Government. The Secretary of State did, however, emphasise, from the moment she was aware of the possibility of Camelot seeking a mid-week draw each week that the director-general must ensure that his decision was entirely compatible and could be seen to be compatible with the provisions set out in Section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act. These require him to
1322
exercise his functions in the manner he considers most likely to secure that the National Lottery is run with all due propriety, that the interests of participants in the lottery are protected and, subject to these overriding considerations, maximise the revenue to the good causes.
The director-general, in exercising the power vested in him by Parliament, judged that the introduction of a mid-week draw was consistent with these duties and allowed the licence to be changed accordingly.
I must emphasise that the protection of players is the requirement that is uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind and both my department and the director-general will monitor carefully the effect of the mid-week lottery to ensure that the interests of the participants are not being undermined and that the players continue to receive the level of protection which they are accorded by the Act.
Of course, the Government recognise that some gambling causes problems of addiction for some people, just as, sadly, problems of addiction exist in a number of other lawful areas of human activity. Lottery draw games of this kind (long odds and long periods of time between the purchase of a ticket, the determination of the winning and the receipt of any prize money) are very unlikely to cause problems for anyone and present a very low risk in this regard. Many countries around the world have had draw games of this kind for many years and in those countries—this is a most important point—there is no evidence that people have developed addiction to games of this kind. This is as true of a weekly draw as it is of a twice-weekly one.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the new mid-week game, and one which has not been mentioned sufficiently, is the effect that it will have on the amount raised for the good causes. Noble Lords may be aware that sales of lottery tickets have been decreasing slightly in recent months. Experience in other countries suggests that the introduction of a mid-week draw is likely to increase the turnover of draw games by about 20 to 30 per cent. (from £70 million to £85 to £90 million a week); and likely therefore to push the turnover of the lottery back to its peak level of about £5.5 billion a year. This important step will therefore help the National Lottery to raise money for good causes.
The Government are committed to maintaining full public confidence in the operation and regulation of the lottery and are aware that there are concerns over the system of regulation. Parliament decided after considerable debate that the best way to build public confidence in the lottery was to give the director-general of the National Lottery the power to license the operator of the lottery and to regulate the operation under the terms of the licences granted. He is not alone in combining roles of this type. He operates similarly to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority in this respect.
Nevertheless, the Government will be reviewing the operation of the lottery before the current Section 5 licence is due to expire in 2001 and will consider the role of the regulator at that stage.

1323
In response to criticisms of the director-general himself and the way that he has overseen the lottery, the Secretary of State has made it clear that she has confidence in him. That confidence has certainly not been diminished by his decision to allow a mid-week draw.
I am aware that Camelot recently published figures which suggested that those with less money spent more on the lottery. The Government consider that the figures produced by the Family Expenditure Survey are statistically better founded and hence are more reliable. They have consistently shown that those with the lowest incomes spend least on the lottery and those with the highest the most.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister allow that that is a very particular interpretation of the Family Expenditure Survey figures? What he is describing is the absolute amount spent, which is not meaningful. If he would quote to the House the percentages of income spent, as I quoted, from exactly that survey, he would see that poor families spend nearly twice as much in percentage terms. Of course they spend less in absolute terms, but that is not meaningful.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord is important; however, it was not clear from the contribution that he made. It is estimated that the average household, according to the Family Expenditure Survey figures, spends something like £2.30, £2.40 or £2.50 a week on the lottery. That must be set against, for example, an average expenditure of £5 a week on cigarettes or £12 on alcohol. The important consideration is whether it is the Government's business to tell people how to spend their money? We do not believe that it is the Government's business. The amount of money spent on the lottery by people in exercising their choice is as I have described it. Indeed, I go further. Even if it were thought that the Government should tell people how to spend their money, given the figures I have described, would the lottery be the right place to start? It would not be.
I emphasise again some of the beneficial effects which we believe the lottery is having in this country. The lottery is helping urban regeneration and providing employment. These things matter, not only to local and central government but perhaps most of all to the people who will gain work and benefit. It is bringing benefits to rural communities. In addition to the flagship projects about which one can read frequently in the national newspapers, a trawl through any of the local newspapers in this country shows how much of an impact some of the smaller projects, with which one is possibly not so familiar, are having throughout the country. These things are important and must not be overlooked in the context of the impact of this very recent development in our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a short point about what is apparently a better manner of distributing lottery funds in Wales as opposed to distribution in England. As the noble Lord knows, the structure of sport in Wales is somewhat different from that in England. The reason why the procedures are slightly different,
1324
I understand, goes back to that. However, I assure the noble Lord that, so far as the Sports Council is concerned, it consults local authorities in order to receive a view from the people on the ground.
Lord Howell: No, it does not.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I will willingly take the point up with the noble Lord outside the Chamber if that is helpful.
The lottery is encouraging people to take part. It is creating facilities for people to take part in sport, for example, or providing musical instruments. In turn, that helps the cohesion of local communities. It is improving access to information. It is helping developments in the countryside, in tourism and in the leisure industry. Many of the lottery projects that are going forward are positively and deliberately environmentally beneficial—for example, the millennium forest in Scotland or the Sustrans national cycleway.
The department is continuously reviewing the way in which the lottery works in order that we can achieve the best results. It is still young. The Government recognise that it must evolve if it is to be effective in the public interest in the areas where it is needed most.
We shall continue to assess the impact that the lottery is having, both on the sectors representing the good causes and more widely, including the charitable and voluntary sectors. It is still a little too early to identify exactly what its overall impact might be, although that will clearly affect our thoughts on what might be done to make lottery funding even more accessible and more beneficial.
In conclusion, I hope that I may have allayed your Lordships' fears over some of the consequences and perceived consequences which the introduction of a second weekly draw might have. I should like to remind your Lordships of the great things that have already been achieved with lottery funds and the even greater things that I am confident will be achieved in the months and years ahead.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am most grateful to all Members of the House who have taken part in this debate. It is certainly important to those of us who have spoken. I am glad to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on a striking maiden speech, particularly as he was able to bring experience of an organisation like the British Legion. As we have seen, it relies enormously on people collecting on street corners, in factories and in shops for the legion's wonderful appeal.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Donoughue that we have heard tonight from every speaker except the Minister a catalogue of potential disaster. That was underlined by the many diverse interests whose representatives spoke in the debate. It would he wrong and invidious to attempt to mention them all. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go down the road of talking about football clubs, the sport and arts foundation, as well as racing. That is horse racing and

1325
dog racing, and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, that dog racing ought to be on equal terms with horse racing or any other interest.
I thank the Minister for giving us such a courteous, well thought out and reasoned speech, as he always does, even if we do not entirely agree with his remarks. On this occasion, I thought he put up a noble effort in defending the impossible. When the whole House is united in its indignation and concern, it takes great courage for the Minister to speak.
However, in his speech I detected some strands of hope. Even at this late hour, with the Budget only days away, I hope that he will draw attention to the remarks of noble Lords because he has an opportunity to act in some areas, and that is important. It is odd that the Minister should tell us that there were reasons for believing that we had the most successful lottery in the world; but he then went on to say that as yet it was impossible to draw conclusions about charity giving. I agree that we cannot draw conclusions yet. But what on earth is he doing, in advance of those conclusions being drawn, authorising a second weekly lottery? It seems to me to undermine the Government's case.
He said, "We can't interfere with people's right to choose how they spend their money". Of course; it is not the Government's duty. But the Government's duty is to hold the balance and ensure justice and fairness between one activity and other activities which might be affected by it. Although he said that it had nothing to do with the Government, he sought to defend their actions by saying that the Secretary of State had relied on Section 4 of the Act to draw the attention of the regulator to how he should conduct his business. If it is not the Government's duty to tell people how to spend their money, I am glad it is the Government's duty to tell the regulator how he should behave in connection with spending the money.
In thanking everyone, I wish to make one last point. Before he sat down, the Minister told us that all these matters would be reviewed in the year 2001. That is far too late to review some of the difficulties that have been outlined in the House. I ask the Government to think again about it. That leads me to express the hope that if they do not do so, then long before 2001 another set of Ministers will carry out their duty to the nation and to the industries concerned.
I thank noble Lords for the pleasant way in which they have received the debate and beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the third Bill which I have had the privilege of introducing into your Lordships' House. The first was a Bill for the protection of wild plants. Your Lordships gave it a second reading and it was subsequently
1326
incorporated into a much larger Bill which reached the statute book. The second was on returnable bottles. It ran into considerable opposition from the industries concerned, and while I cannot pretend that the situation in that field is now satisfactory, I can, I think, justifiably claim that the much more enlightened attitude of the same industries today owes something to the pressure which those of your Lordships who supported me then brought to bear on them.
This, my third Bill, is, as your Lordships will observe, in the same green field. But it concerns me far more deeply, as it bears on our treatment of sentient animals. It was introduced into another place by Mr. Alan Meales as a ten-minute rule Bill. Mr. Alan Meales will be known to a number of your Lordships as the president of the Westminster Beer Club, of which I am proud to wear the tie tonight while giving this speech. It was drafted by Compassion in World Farming, an admirable charity.
Its aims have attracted considerable cross-party support in successive early-day Motions in another place. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will feel that it should either become law as soon as possible or, at the very least, that it should be discussed fully and sufficiently amended, if necessary, so that it can be re-introduced into Parliament, preferably by Government in a Session longer than we shall be able to enjoy this year.
The Bill clears up a serious gap in the law in that it introduces for the first time provisions designed to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems.
I should stress that the UK chicken flock comprises two totally separate flocks. One is kept to lay eggs. Most of these birds are kept in battery cages and their welfare problems are relatively well known. In the other, much larger flock, chickens—called broilers—are reared for their meat.
We rear over 700 million broilers in the UK each year. Yet broiler chickens 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 these birds.
The vast majority of broilers are reared intensively indoors. They are kept in huge windowless sheds, often holding around 30,000 birds. These sheds are so overcrowded that as the birds grow bigger one can barely see the floor, so thickly is it carpeted with chickens. There are fears that the maximum stocking density recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture in its welfare code is frequently exceeded. To solve this problem, in its 1992 report on broilers the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that the maximum stocking density should be laid down in legally binding regulations rather than, as at present, being left to an unenforceable welfare code. To date, the Ministry of Agriculture has failed to act on the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendation. No maximum stocking density is laid down by law; my Bill remedies that omission.

1327
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 weight in literally double quick time. Today's broilers have been bred to reach their slaughter weight in just six weeks. That is twice as fast as 30 years ago. What grows quickly is the muscle, which is eaten as the meat. The legs, however, 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. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's working group found leg problems of varying degrees of severity on nearly every farm that they visited.
Academic research which assessed the walking ability of broilers has suggested that as many as 180 million chickens a year could be suffering from those painful problems. There has of late perhaps been some improvement in the position because the industry, to do it justice, has been to a certain extent putting its house in order. But I fear that every year tens of millions of birds continue to be afflicted by painful leg disorders.
In the worst cases, chickens are incapable of sustained walking and can only move 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 broilers as suffering from a long and painful list of bone and joint disorders. Broilers are growing too fast, not only for their legs but also for their heart and lungs. Many birds develop congestive heart failure which causes ascites. Those noble Lords with a classical education will know that that means a wine skin and it describes a situation in which the abdomen fills with body fluids. Around 7 million broilers die of ascites each year before reaching their slaughter age of six weeks. Professor Webster has 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".
I am sure your Lordships will all agree with that.
A significant number of broilers also suffer from painful breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Such injuries arise because, owing to leg weakness, many birds spend long periods squatting on the litter. Wood shavings is the material most commonly used for litter in broiler sheds and in most cases the litter is never cleaned or changed throughout the birds' life. As the weeks go by, it can become increasingly contaminated with poultry manure. Prolonged contact with such litter can lead to breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Improved litter management is a key factor in reducing the incidence of these painful injuries. My Bill includes a requirement that litter is kept clean and dry.
I should add that keeping broilers in poor condition not only inflicts suffering on the birds but also poses serious threats to human health. Earlier this year a report by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food found that one in three broilers are infected with salmonella and even more—44 per cent.—are contaminated with campylobacter. Salmonella and campylobacter are the main sources of food poisoning in humans. Last month (October 1996), Which? magazine examined a number of whole chickens and chicken
1328
portions bought from a range of supermarkets. It found 32 out of 90 to be unfit for human consumption. In a second sample of fresh and frozen broilers, 50 per cent. were found to be infected with salmonella or campylobacter.
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 broilers that if, instead of being slaughtered at six weeks they were allowed to live on, 80 per cent. of them would die before reaching the age of puberty at 18 weeks.
That, indeed, presents a massive problem to one particular sector of the broiler industry. We have already differentiated between the battery hens and the broiler flock. Now, within the broiler flock there is a sub-division, between broilers who will end up on our tables and the broiler birds who lay the eggs which produce the next generation of broiler birds—the breeders. If they were fed as the others are fed, many would die before reaching puberty. Those that survive would suffer reduced fertility.
To address those problems, the parent stock—the breeders—are fed on restricted rations to slow down their growth. One study found that broiler breeders ate only a quarter to half of what they would have eaten if given free access to food, remembering that they are bred to eat large quantities of food. The researchers concluded that restricted fed broiler breeders are "chronically hungry, frustrated and stressed". I believe that there can be no proper 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 empty 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 by a Bristol University study which examined the cause of death in broilers that were dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse. Just over half had died from heart failure, to which, as I said, their overfeeding makes them prone. The researchers presumed that for those birds the stress of catching, loading and transporting had been simply too much for them to cope with.
Thirty-five per cent. had died from traumatic injuries, with a dislocated hip being the most common injury. That was associated with profuse haemorrhaging, and in around one third of the cases the femur, a major bone, had 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

1329
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 there would be a public outcry no less strong and even more justified than that occasioned by the live export trade, of which other noble Lords who will speak this evening have some experience. Urgent reforms are needed to address the very serious health and welfare problems experienced by broilers. My Bill will require the broiler industry to take a much more responsible approach in the rearing of its chickens.
I do not pretend that the Bill is in a perfect state and I am more than ready to listen to your Lordships' ideas for amendment at Committee stage if noble Lords consent to give it a Second Reading today. In particular, I should be happy to entertain a longer period for the industry to adapt to the Bill, if that were thought right.
Like many of your Lordships, I was brought up on a farm. We treated our animals with decency, and although there has always been a certain amount of callousness in agriculture, the infliction of downright cruelty has always been anathema to the overwhelming majority of British farmers. There are laws against it in every other branch of the industry. Let us put our house in order here too.
I live in Clapham. When William Wilberforce had succeeded in abolishing the slave trade through these two Houses, he held a party. At the party was Henry Thornton, who lived at the bottom of my road. As they were congratulating themselves, William Wilberforce said to Henry Thornton, "Henry, what shall we abolish next?" and Henry said, "The national lottery". They did abolish the national lottery then. Much to my dismay, we cannot abolish the National Lottery today. But we can abolish or at least regulate the appalling cruelty which has gone on in this industry despite the efforts of some people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. This is a much needed Bill. It is unacceptable to me and I am sure to most other noble Lords that we in this country, which has traditionally had a national concern for the welfare of animals—look how we cherish our dogs, cats and horses—should pay little or no attention to farm animals. Broiler chickens are one glaring example of that neglect.
Broiler chickens are raised in this country annually to the tune of 700 million and yet they are the only creatures among the UK's major factory-farmed farm animals which have no specific law to protect them. Pigs, cows and battery hens are all taken care of by the
1330
Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. But on broilers the law is silent, despite the severity of the health and welfare problems suffered by those birds.
The main problems are overcrowding—highly common in broiler sheds—and a high incidence of painful leg disorders. This Bill aims to establish improved health and welfare standards for broilers reared indoors. In particular, if it becomes law, it will end the factory farming of broilers and restrict selective breeding for rapid growth, which leads to serious health problems for millions of broilers.
The majority of the chickens are kept in huge, windowless sheds in which the birds are so overcrowded that it is hard to see the floor. Under those conditions it is difficult for the stockman to inspect the birds properly and the result is that each year millions of broilers become diseased, injured or die from untreated diseases.
The worst welfare problems arise from the use in the broiler industry of selective breeding to bring the birds to their slaughter weight as quickly as possible. Modern broilers are bred to reach their slaughter weight in only six weeks; 30 years ago that period was 12 weeks, twice as long—all in the interests of profit.
The muscle is the part that grows most quickly and is the part that we eat. However, the leg cannot keep pace and cannot properly support the body and therefore millions of broilers suffer from painful and crippling leg disorders, sometimes to the extent that they cannot walk and move by crawling on their shanks. Rapid body growth also puts heavy strain on the heart and lungs, resulting in several million chicks dying each year of heart disease before they reach their slaughter weight at six weeks. Many broilers also suffer from painful breast blisters, ulcerated feet and hock burns. Owing to leg weakness, many of them spend long periods squatting in the litter, generally wood shavings, that covers the floors of broiler sheds. The litter is rarely changed throughout the lives of the birds and becomes increasingly fouled by poultry manure.
Keeping broilers under such conditions cannot fail to produce a serious threat to human health. Only this year a report by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food found that one in three broilers is infected with salmonella and 44 per cent. are contaminated with campylobacter. Those are the main causes of food poisoning in humans. In October of this year, Which? magazine did a survey of whole chickens and chicken portions bought from supermarkets. It found 32 out of 90 to be unfit for human consumption. In a second sample of fresh and frozen chickens, 50 per cent. were found to be contaminated with salmonella and campylobacter. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on bringing this Bill forward. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say. I hope that the Government will take careful note of what has been said this evening and give the Bill a fair wind.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his Bill and hope that the House will continue to give him support. He gave us a great number of details about the injuries suffered by broiler chickens under factory farm conditions and I shall therefore not cover that ground again. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, also added to the list. I should like to concentrate on the possible dangers to human health.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the presence of salmonella and campylobacter. But there is a more serious side to this situation. Antibiotics are routinely fed to the majority of broilers to fight the diseases which are inevitable in intensive farming. That does not encourage one to the view that such products are healthy or wise. The practice encourages the production of bacteria which are resistant not only to the antibiotics used in animal feed but also to some of those used to treat serious bacterial infections in humans.
We heard recently of the worries expressed by the medical profession in relation to the increasing incidence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics used in medicine, both in general practice and in hospitals. The routine use of antibiotics in broiler houses must be a contributing factor.
I do not support the proposition that animals have rights on a par with humans. I am probably inviting trouble by saying that, but that is my view. But we have assumed control of the production of animals for our own uses and with that power comes responsibility. We have a duty of care to the creatures in our control. Respect for life in all its forms is embodied in many cultures, including our own, and the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, referred to the fact that many farmers have a care for their animals. I believe they always have had and to this day many farmers still have that care. But factory farming, especially of chickens, has left that care behind.
The other kinds of factory farming, as we heard, are protected by rules and regulations. This specific branch has none. If we abandon the respect we should have for living creatures we diminish ourselves. For those who do not find that philosophy appealing, I offer the economic argument. Good animal husbandry always has been and still is good business, even more so these days as the consumer begins to pay more attention to the means by which food arrives in the supermarket. If any good can be said to have come from the BSE fiasco, it may be found in the increasing public awareness of the peculiar practices which have crept into food production.
There is evidence among consumers of a desire for food to be produced by more environmentally friendly means. That public demand will grow. I understand that there is already a demand for organic produce which cannot be met by British farmers and a demand for free range hens which cannot be met. In supermarkets I notice as I watch carefully that they sell out quickly. I also notice, on a more serious note, that, if one looks along the racks of broiler chickens for sale in
1332
supermarkets, one often sees deformed bodies. That is extremely unattractive. I certainly would not buy them and I am sure that many other consumers feel the same.
I believe the public demand for better quality food will grow. Sooner or later it will conflict with the accountant-led factory farming ethic. I believe that this small Bill is a step in the right direction and that the industry and the Government will do well to support it.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I rise to make a short intervention in this debate on a matter of good farming practice. Common humanity alone seems to be the principle at stake here, which has been clearly demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who introduced the Bill so excellently and clearly and with such force, demonstrating the clear inhumanity demonstrated by human beings towards these poor, unfortunate creatures.
This Bill will not affect the traditional farmer-stockman who tends his flock with the best standards of animal husbandry. He is being replaced in this sector of the market by the agri-economist whose methods are derived entirely from that usually most proper perspective, the profit margin. That profit can only be obtained through the supermarket chains. They are interested only in cheap food, which means low quality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, the demand for organic chickens, eggs and farm products generally is increasing incrementally.
The supermarkets themselves are involved in bitter price wars. On that basis alone, the inhumanity of the broilerhouse is inevitable and, unfortunately, a natural reaction to untethered market forces. This might come strangely from someone speaking from this side of the House, but I have to admit it. There are limits to the call of market forces where our duties and responsibilities to the animal kingdom come into conflict not only with the profit margin, but also with the health of the nation. This is where we have reached that limit. The overwhelming desire to create a profit margin drives the need to farm intensively. We have experience only too close to home to warn us of the dangers in the direction of intensive farming. I shall say no more.
That brings me to the point that the vast output of this industry provides a stable diet in every household in the land. The broiler chicken goes into the cheapest pies that one can find. They are just as dangerous as the other pies which we have been warned quite recently not to eat. Thereby, being part of the staple diet in every household in the land, it directly affects the health of the nation. It has been shown that nearly 80 per cent. of the protein value of a chicken is generated in the fat of the bird. If your Lordships will forgive the pun, that gets gravely reduced in the cooking process so that the energy delivered in eating the bird is minimal.
It will not surprise your Lordships that I hold the view, supported by laboratory evidence, that the free-range bird offers the opposite protein benefit to the broilerhouse bird. At least it can walk on its own two feet, unlike its broilerhouse cousin, which has been deliberately bred with weak legs. It has been

1333
deliberately bred. Can noble Lords believe that? The more that can be done to improve the lot of that badly misused hen will have my full support. This is intensive farming par excellence. It is factory farming carried to the extreme limit of common sense and has no place in our modern society.
I hope that this Bill, so ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and which has the benefit of brevity, will be accepted by my noble friend on the Front Bench and given a rapid and fair wind through Parliament.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the clear manner in which he described his Bill and acknowledged its importance both from the point of view of parliamentary procedure and the substance matter that it contains. He reminded us that a Bill in similar terms was given a First Reading in another place on 12th March 1996 under the 10 Minute Rule. That Bill did not make progress in the last Session. Doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to reply for the Government this evening, will tell us the reason for that and, in particular, the response of the Government to the Bill.
We believe that this is a complex area of undoubted importance to United Kingdom consumers and producers. Our first query is whether a measure of this importance should be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill and whether there has been much consultation, with producers in particular, about its terms. In particular, is the Bill's proposed stocking density, which makes it an offence to exceed seven birds per square metre, based on scientific analysis? A similar query arises on the Bill's permitted flock size, which has a limitation of 3,000 broiler chickens. How will these provisions affect our current producers?
I am informed that broiler chicken production is controlled by legislation and a code of practice and that these are reviewed and updated by government. The code of practice is currently being reviewed. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say a word about this? The Farm Animal Welfare Council, already referred to this evening and whose distinguished chairman is Professor Sir Colin Spedding, also reports to MAFF on areas of farm animal welfare. The council reported in 1992 on the welfare of broiler chickens. It suggested areas of improvement which, we are told, have been addressed by breeders, researchers and flock owners. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to speak for the Ministry tonight, say what is the current welfare position of broilers and whether the Farm Animal Welfare Council has any current or prospective remit in this manner?
The European Union has an interest in these questions, having already addressed the question of egg-laying chicks. It is thus appropriate to ask if Community harmonisation measures are likely or will follow if tonight's Bill as it stands becomes law? While one would not expect critics of the broiler industry to be satisfied with its current state in the United Kingdom,
1334
we are told that progress has been made in areas such as the condition of broilers' legs, particularly as regards leg strength. I understand that this progress has lately been acknowledged by Professor Webster of Bristol University, an authority on animal welfare to whom reference has already been made.
We are in sympathy with what the Bill seeks to do, even if we believe that both the nature and terms of the Bill may not be the most appropriate way of dealing with the matter. Household consumption of uncooked poultry is now 16 per cent. higher in Great Britain than it was 10 years ago. Advice on safe handling and preparing poultry is readily available. No doubt the Minister will have something to say about the suggestion that poultry is in some respects not safe at the present time.
By comparison with the figures that I have given for poultry, the household consumption of carcase meat—that is to say, beef, veal, mutton, lamb and pork—fell by nearly one-third between 1985 and 1994, with further decreases being recorded in 1995. These figures, taken from the National Food Survey, are indicative of the importance of poultry to both the budget and the diet of consumers. Bad welfare conditions will not produce good chickens, as my noble friend Lady Nicol said, but consultation with all interested parties is an essential ingredient for improvement. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is very much a consultation-minded body and we believe that its good offices should be used again on this important matter.
We are, however, not opposed to the Bill being given a Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already expressed his willingness to consider amendments. However, whether the timescale which is available to us between now and the Committee and Report stages of the Bill will allow for the degree of consultation that we believe is necessary for a Bill so sweeping as this one, is another matter. Nevertheless, as I have said, we hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading because it will at least allow the House to further discuss the underlying principles which the Bill contains.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this has been a useful and informative debate. I am pleased—but not at all surprised—to find a large measure of agreement in the House on the need to ensure the proper welfare of broiler chickens. I agree entirely with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that we have a duty of care.
I am delighted to join the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in praising Compassion in World Farming, which is an excellent organisation. Even if we do not agree with it all the time, I thoroughly approve of the stand that it takes from its own point of view. We would all be the poorer without it. Over time it has achieved a great deal. I also approve of the taste in ties of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I would be happy to join him in a glass afterwards.
I hope that in the course of the next 10 minutes or so I shall be able to convince your Lordships that the changes proposed in the Bill are largely unnecessary and

1335
to some extent undesirable. Given the questions that he raised, I believe that those suspicions are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave us a fine exposition of his case, but it was a case made out very much from the chickens' point of view rather than the human. As a nation we have benefited greatly from the advances that have been made and from the enormous reduction in the price of chickens. I noted that the election slogan of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, still seemed to be, "A chicken in every pot"; the Liberal Party might want to have, "Another £ 1 billion" in its election manifesto, because that is what this Bill to benefit chickens might cost. We need a sense of proportion in these matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to consumer pressure. That point was echoed by my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam, who said that free-range and organic chickens were enjoying increasing popularity in the shops. That is a common experience and is entirely the right way for pressure for change to be focused. People may want to pay more—as I have indicated, some of these measures are extremely expensive—and people who do want to pay more will be able to give a happier and longer life to the chickens they eat if that is what they wish to do. For most of us, however, our concern is that broiler chickens live in proper and reasonable conditions and that we are not subjecting them to cruelty.
Broiler chickens have already benefited from the development of the high welfare standards of which we are justifiably proud. The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 makes it an offence to cause or allow livestock on agricultural land to suffer unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. This, of course, includes broilers. The Act provides for detailed secondary legislation, some of which, as I shall explain later, already applies to the rearing of broiler chickens.
In addition, the Act allows the publication of codes of welfare recommendations. The codes—and there is of course one covering broilers—provide authoritative guidance to farmers to help them to comply with statutory requirements. Furthermore, failure to comply with a code provision may be relied on by the prosecution as tending to establish guilt in proceedings for an alleged offence of causing or allowing unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress. This legislation is enforced by the State Veterinary Service. All complaints, allegations or other evidence of problems are investigated.
We are committed to taking forward the recommendations in the report on the welfare of broilers made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1992. We have already taken account of these in the development of our research and advisory programmes and we will be producing a new updated welfare code for broilers.
Of course, we have to have proper welfare standards for broiler chickens—and we do. Of course, we should seek to keep improving those standards—and we are. But if we are to introduce new standards, as this Bill suggests we should, we must be careful not to put our own producers at a disadvantage. The broiler chicken
1336
business is international and intensely competitive. We need to work with the realities of the industry and not against them.
As far as legislative changes are concerned, our policy therefore is to seek to improve farm animal welfare on a Europe-wide basis. We have worked for the new Council of Europe recommendation, providing a basis for us to work for higher EU standards in due course—as has already been achieved for other farm animals.
I turn now to the Bill and its proposals. The Bill proposes halving current stocking densities. That is the way I would read the provision on seven chickens per square metre. House temperatures would fall, increasing feed intake and requiring additional heat. We would need to double the amount of accommodation for rearing chickens. That would present significant problems in terms of obtaining planning permission, to say the least. Other costs such as labour, repairs, maintenance and the like would rise due to reduced economies of scale. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, understands, there is no science to suggest that current stocking densities are in any way a welfare problem.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, surely it is not a matter of a welfare problem; it is a matter of sheer inhumanity.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I disagree. I do not think that there is any indication that chickens raised in such conditions are unhappy or are cruelly treated. I was brought up on a farm and have raised chickens myself. They ran around the garden. That is how I like to see chickens. But that does not exactly produce cheap meat for the people of this country. Enormous additional expenditure would be required if chickens were to run around our gardens. We must strike a reasonable balance. We must not treat chickens cruelly—nor must we impose enormous costs on people merely from sentiment unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested, people wish to pay that price, in which case it should be made possible for them to do so. If people can afford the price, chickens can then be raised in the conditions that people would wish.
The second suggestion in the Bill relates to flock size. The reasons for that proposal entirely escape me. It seems merely a pointless inconvenience. Again, I am not aware of any science which suggests that current flock sizes are a problem. Looking at the first two proposals together, we reckon that the cost to the industry—obviously one expects further mark-ups down the line—might be of the order of £150 million per year.
The next matter raised in the Bill is the hunger of broiler breeders. I believe that the situation here is analogous to that of a pet dog. If one allowed one's pet dog to eat everything that it wanted, it would become fat. That would be cruel. Indeed, it causes me great pain to see such dogs. Broiler breeders, like dogs, are animals which do not limit their appetite to what they need to be healthy and fit. Broiler breeders are kept in such a condition that they are, by definition, in peak breeding condition. Anyone who has kept wild animals knows that if an animal is in breeding condition, it is in good

1337
condition. Therefore, it seems a denial of good sense that an animal which is in good breeding condition can in any way be subject to cruelty in the matter of hunger. If the animal was under-fed, or even over-fed, it would not be in good breeding condition.
I turn now to the area of leg problems, about which concerns have been long acknowledged. I should emphasise that they are being addressed by both Government and industry. The Ministry's research programme in this area stands at nearly £ million in the current financial year. Results have led to changes in feeding and lighting programmes used by the industry which are already improving welfare. The broiler bloodstock industry is doing excellent work in improving the genetic basis for leg strength. All this is hardly surprising: a chicken with leg problems is not only a miserable bird but a serious financial loss in a low margin industry. All this has happened without the need for more legislation. The same applies to other problems such as ascites. If a bird dies, particularly after one has fed it a good quantity of feed and looked after it for a long while, that causes a financial loss. Such things are not tolerated for long in an industry which is largely highly professional and well organised.
I turn now to the veterinary proposals. We find them unreal. A quick costing of them suggests that the industry would face £400 million per year in increased veterinary fees. The noble Lord grew up on a farm and he knows as well as I do what he would have done with a sick chicken: he would have put it out of its misery quickly. That is what is done in the industry. That is the right way to deal with chickens. There is no way in which one can afford vet's fees of £45 per hour in any sensible economy. I do not suppose that even my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam would wish to pay vet's fees on his free-range birds—
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, my noble friend is mistaken.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to learn that I am mistaken; but what the noble Lord said has surprised me. It is right that the flock should be inspected and that appropriate action should be taken to deal with those birds who are injured and diseased. On a well-run farm this will be done several times a day. To do less is to invite the spread of disease. Legislation already requires that livestock kept in intensive systems must be inspected at least once each day and appropriate action must be taken if they are found not to be in a state of well-being.
I turn to the proposals on litter. If one does not look after one's litter properly one gets hockburn, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said. The birds are downgraded and the farm loses money. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 require that poultry kept indoors should have well maintained litter or a well drained area for resting. We do not feel that further legislation is required. This is already a matter on which the industry is focused and conditions are greatly improved—and not surprisingly.
1338
I turn to transport. The catching and handling of broilers is covered by the existing welfare code. Failure to do this properly could give rise to a prosecution for causing unnecessary pain or distress. Problems identified at the slaughterhouse are picked up by the State Veterinary Service and taken back to the farm. They will also be the subject of prosecution. In addition, they give rise to financial loss, because birds that are dead or severely damaged on arrival at the slaughterhouse will not provide the producer with any revenue.
Two other questions were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to antibiotics and growth promoters. This is a well-known subject but it is rather outside the scope of this particular Bill. Clearly, there are a number of controls and a good deal of research in this area. We are satisfied that the current use of these substances is properly controlled, and that they are no danger to humans. However, given the potential for the development of resistant strains, we keep our eyes well open. But these substances have beneficial effects. To forbid their use unilaterally will place our producers at a very severe disadvantage. It is not a matter that we wish to see incorporated in a Bill of this kind.
So far as concerns the Which? report on salmonella and campylobacter, I confess that I first saw it five minutes ago. I do not feel that it is a matter to which I should give an off-the-cuff reply, but I shall write to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening with a considered answer.
In conclusion, while the aspirations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and others enjoy a great measure of Government support, this Bill does not.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, on a quick calculation the additional cost to the industry that he outlines amounts to about 50p per bird. Even if the entire cost is passed on to the consumer, does he believe that that is a price worth paying?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, for the improvements proposed in this Bill, no.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly all those who, with the exception of the Government spokesman, have supported it in one way or another. However, I note the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.
The Minister accused me of taking the point of view of the chicken rather than the human. What I believe we should do, what I hope your Lordships want to do, what the noble Baroness suggested we should do and what I hope the Minister will, on consideration, feel should be done, is to take both points of view, balance them and take note of the responsibility that we have for the animals that we use for our own purposes.
We are told that there are sufficient regulations to ensure that cruelty does not occur, but in this field cruelty is well documented. There are good practitioners

1339
and rearers who do not practise cruelty and look after their flocks with care, but there are plenty of others who do not. When we get to Committee stage—I hope that your Lordships will ensure that we do—I shall ask the Minister how many prosecutions have been brought in the field of broilers under the laws that he says are sufficient. I am delighted to hear that there are new and updated codes. The suggested changes in this Bill are not out of context. I refer to the suggestion that there should be seven hens per square metre. One can see what a square metre is. It is approximately the distance between the end of this Bench and the Woolsack or between the Judges' Bench and the Table. I would have thought it perfectly reasonable that farmers and breeders of these animals should provide that amount of space. I would have thought that any greater concentration would cause cruelty.
It is said that the people of this country want cheap meat. I believe that they rely on the law of the land to ensure that in the production of their food there is no cruelty. If they were aware that cruelty occurred, I do not believe that they would hesitate to pay more for their food. Unlike, apparently, the noble Lord, I believe that the people of this country do not approve of cruelty to animals. The noble Lord does not believe that there is any cruelty, but if it did occur the people of this country would not want it. I am sure they would be prepared to pay more for the absence of cruelty.
1340
Broiler breeders do not limit their appetites. The noble Lord said that if they went on eating they would be treated rather like fat labradors. If they continued to eat one would just put them on a diet. These birds are bred specifically not to temper their appetites. They are bred in order that they shall eat as much as possible. Equally, it has been said that breeding animals are healthy animals. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. Your Lordships will recall the debates that have been held on the topic of battery hens. It is accepted by everyone that the battery hen system at its worst produces a lot of eggs with a lot of cruelty. An animal can breed and be cruelly treated. A lot of animals breed when they are being cruelly treated.
I do not believe that the Minister has made a case against the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord who spoke from the Labour Front Bench put a very reasonable case, which I totally accept, that time should be taken over this Bill, that consultations with the industry should go further than they have so far and that a situation should be arrived at in which agreed regulations are produced. Whatever the Minister may say, at the moment enforceable regulations do not exist. It is time that they did.
I ask that noble Lords give this Bill a Second Reading tonight so that the case can be examined rather more deeply. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on theCivil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
Wednesday, 20th November 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in this Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Civil Procedure Rules]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert
("(3) The provisions of this section and of Schedule I shall have effect for the purpose of enabling courts to conduct proceedings expeditiously and at reasonable economic cost, consistent with fairness in the administration of justice.").
The noble Lord said: When I was six years of age and thrown in at the deep end of the Tuttle Street Baths in Wrexham, someone threw in a lifebelt and I was pulled to the side. My children were a little more fortunate because they had pink inflatable plastic water wings which were puffed up by and indulgent parent. I come before you today with my water wing, which is also pink, and I assure your Lordships that it is neither inflated nor puffed up, and that is the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
The committee is particularly concerned about paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 19 and 32, all of which are relevant to the concerns expressed by the Committee. The paragraph gives to the civil procedure rule committee the widest powers to modify the rules of evidence. It says,
"Civil Procedure Rules may modify the rules of evidence as they apply to proceedings in any court within the scope of the rules".
The committee's views are set out in its report at paragraph 8, and they make the following points: that in the past rules of evidence have mostly been made by the decisions of the courts or by statute; that such powers as have in the past been delegated to rules committees have been limited and concerned mainly with procedural matters; that paragraph 4 in Schedule 1 could, by contrast, change statutory and judge-made rules bearing critically upon the whole range of civil litigation; and that substantial evidential doctrines—for example public interest immunity and legal professional privilege—could well be affected.
The committee, having viewed the particular paragraph in question in Schedule 1 then sought the views of the Lord Chancellor's Department in writing. The department's representatives referred at page 11, paragraph 4.2, to the views that had been expressed to them by the Law Commission. The Law Commission said that it was used to having difficulty implementing reform of the law by primary legislation, and consequently supported the extension of rule-making powers to matters of evidence. It was the view of the Law Commission that effective case management must include limiting cross-examination and excluding evidence. The Lord Chancellor's Department was asked what use it envisaged would be made of paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 1 which would involve over-riding any enactment. Its answer, first of all in writing, was vague and unsatisfactory. It said that no specific need could be foreseen, that parliamentary counsel simply suggested that there might be legislation effected, and that the rule committee might wish to consider the manner in which expert and opinion evidence was given, reference being made particularly to the Civil Evidence Act 1972. The answer appears at paragraph 6.2 on page 11 of the report of the Select Committee.
On the examination of witnesses by the committee, the answers given did not make the position more satisfactory. Mr Michael Kron agreed, in response to question 13 on page 14, that the effect of the proposed legislation was to permit legislation to cover not simply specific aspects of the rules of evidence but was a generalised power to permit rules of court to cover all aspects of the rules of evidence, whether statutory or at common law. He further agreed that it was a significant change.
It is not my function to go through the whole of the exchanges that took place between the witnesses and the committee but to draw attention to the views, at page 4 of the Select Committee report, where, in bold lettering, it expressed the view that,
"paragraph 4 should remain, provided that the additional safeguards described below are added to the bill."
The amendments to which I am speaking follow the recommended safeguards set out at paragraph 9 on the same page. The first amendment is a purpose clause. Mrs Hodgson, in giving evidence to the Select Committee, declared that the Lord Chancellor's Department was
"open-minded to a purpose clause, and how it might he phrased,"
The amendment that I propose follows the thinking of the Select Committee and endeavours to encapsulate, in as brief a form as possible, the eight principles of the

CWH 3
Woolf Report, Access to Justice. I am conscious that purpose clauses are frequently criticised. The Renton Committee Report, The Preparation of Legislation said in 1975 that,
"Among the advocates of statements of purpose are those whose task it is to pronounce or advise on the effects of legislation: members of the judiciary, practising lawyers and teachers of law."
The draftsman was less impressed and referred to the evidence of Professor Reed Dickerson who thought that most purpose clauses were quite unnecessary, and tended to degenerate into pious incantations such as the one in a recent ecology Bill which in substance said, "Hurray for nature", but that in preparatory language, in individual sentences such as "for the purpose of this", "for the purpose of that" or "in order to do this", an economic focus purpose statement was of some use. I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships a focused, purpose statement that may be of some use.
The Renton Committee drew a distinction between a statement of purpose which simply delimits and illuminates the legal effects of the Bill on the one hand and a statement of purpose which is a mere manifesto. I suggest that this amendment is not a manifesto and that it seeks to set a balance between expedition and economic costs on the one hand and fairness on the other. It is the importance of maintaining that balance which causes me to invite your Lordships to consider the amendment. I suggest that it would be helpful, first of all, to the civil procedure rule committee to have these standards encapsulated in the Bill and at the forefront of their minds in drafting the civil procedure rules. Secondly, the purpose clause would be a test against which rules can be measured.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, a purpose clause would be a constraint on future amendments because one can quite perceive that in the carrying out of the Woolf Report the civil procedure rule committee would initially be enthusiastic to follow the principles that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has so helpfully and carefully set out in paragraph 1 of his report, but that in future there might be a real danger that those principles would be forgotten. Hence the importance of stating that balance as I have expressed it between financial considerations and expedition, on the one hand, and fairness on the other.
Amendment No. 19, to which your Lordships may permit me to speak, encapsulates the second recommendation of the Select Committee in that same paragraph 9 on page 4. The second recommendation was that,
"no existing enactment should be overridden unless the rule expressly so provides, in which case the rule should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure".
Amendment No. 19 does not follow that wording exactly for a number of reasons. I first suggest to your Lordships that the principle to which the Select Committee referred should not be confined simply to existing enactments. The substantive law of evidence is very much a product of the common law. For example, public interest immunity has developed enormously
CWH 4
over the past three or four years in criminal cases and although we are dealing with civil procedure I have no doubt there may be an impact in this field as well.
Secondly, a provision in the terms that I have suggested in Amendment No. 19 would avoid legal argument as to whether a principle of the law of evidence had been amended or repealed by the rule committee by necessary implication. It would require the rule committee expressly to provide for the amendment, repeal or revocation of any particular enactment. Your Lordships may feel it wise to ensure that the civil procedure rule committee had expressly considered the effects of the rules upon existing law and that it should not be by way of some back-door method of amending the law. That would simply cause all sorts of problems in the courts which are attempting to marry the civil procedure rules with the well-known existing statutory and common law rules of evidence, as an example.
I have already mentioned the Select Committee reference to the rule being subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and that matter is covered in Amendment No. 20, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, will be speaking. I do not propose at this stage to say anything further about it. Again, I suggest to your Lordships that amendments made in the future are the real danger against which one must guard.
Finally, Amendment No. 32 refers to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 which says:
"Paragraphs 2 to 4 have effect in spite of anything in any other enactment."
One might call that a defiant provision. It is a sort of bill of rights in embryo that anything that has happened or may happen in the future would be overridden by that provision. The amendment differs slightly from the Select Committee's recommendation that paragraph 8 should not apply to any future enactment by simply expressing the overriding provision as subject to Amendment No. 19, which I have proposed that your Lordships should insert into the Bill. If my proposed amendments are adopted the scope of the overriding provision is sensibly limited. I hope that the amendments that I have spoken to altogether address the concerns advanced by the Select Committee and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate at the outset that I very warmly welcome the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and its recommendations, subject to a point that I am about to mention. My intention is that I should bring forward amendments to address these points in time for Report stage. I am also minded to introduce a purpose clause somewhat on the lines of Amendment No. 1, but parliamentary counsel, as he noted in the reference to Lord Renton's committee report, needs some time to consider exactly what that should contain. However, it would be quite wise to go along those lines.
The second recommendation is covered by Amendment No. 19, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, goes rather further in that he wishes the provision to

CWH 5
refer to any rules of common law. That creates a difficulty because one of the purposes of the rules would be to clarify situations that might be less than clear at common law and that sort of provision would be quite difficult to operate. My present intention, subject to anything that your Lordships may say, is to bring forward an amendment at Report stage to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
As regards Amendment No. 32, I would be very happy to go along with the proposal in Amendment No. 32, subject to the detailed drafting considerations that I am sure your Lordships would wish it to receive.
In regard to Amendment No. 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I propose to go along with the proposal of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in having the affirmative resolution procedure where the rules modify an enactment. That is a satisfactory balance because, as your Lordships know, there are quite a lot of rules which are very much matters of agreement and on which it would be quite inappropriate to occupy the time of either House of Parliament. On the other hand, where something that Parliament has passed is being dealt with it is clear that that should be done by the affirmative resolution procedure. In essence I am accepting, subject to drafting, the Select Committee recommendations referred to, and subject also to embracing the somewhat more flexible Amendment No. 32 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
It might be as well for me to say at this stage that I also intend to follow the terms of paragraph 11 of the report; namely, that where the main proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf s review are implemented by the rule committee—at the stage at which the rule committee has finalised its consideration of the matter and before it goes forward to make the necessary rules—I shall lay what it has done before both Houses of Parliament so that both Houses have the opportunity at that stage to comment on the rules. I believe that that is a constructive way of handling the matter.
In so far as the rules were commented on, I would wish the rule committee to take these comments into consideration before they finalise the rules. The rules would then be subject to affirmative resolution in so far as they modify existing enactments, otherwise to the negative resolution procedure. I am, therefore, accepting the spirit of the proposals.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps he could help me on a small point which I believe I should have covered by an amendment. It arises from his agreement in regard to Amendment No. 20 and the affirmative procedure. I refer to Schedule 2, paragraph 4, which states:
"In section 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (regulations and orders), in subsection (4), "1(1)" is omitted".
The position is that the effect of that paragraph is, as the explanatory memorandum indicates:
"It also provides for negative resolution procedure to apply to orders made under section 1(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 regarding the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts".
CWH 6
Section 1 of the 1990 Act provides that:
"The Lord Chancellor may by order make provisions—"
and then it deals with conferring jurisdiction here, there and everywhere. Section 120 then provides:
"Any power to make orders or regulations conferred by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
It then proceeds to state:
"No instrument shall be made under Section 1(1) … unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses of Parliament."
May I infer from the noble and learned Lord's concession that paragraph 4 can in future find itself omitted from the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: That is not my intention. The explanation is that we had that provision in the 1990 Act. In fact, on the allocation matters there has been very little disagreement so far as experience since then is concerned. In view of that experience I therefore felt that it was really no longer necessary to require Parliament's time to be taken up by an affirmative resolution procedure. That is why the amendment is there, and it is not my understanding that the Delegated Powers Committee want to affect that, because it is not one of the rules of court procedures. It is a separate system. That is my reasoning. So far as I know the committee did not disagree with my reasoning, as a result of which that position was taken.
Lord Kingsland: As a member of the Select Committee on delegated powers and deregulation, perhaps I could say, on behalf of its chairman, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, how very pleased the committee will be at hearing what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in reaction to the committee's recommendations.
However, as the member of the committee who was perhaps more responsible than any other for raising the issue about the relationship between Clause 1 and Schedule 1, and in particular Schedule 1 paragraph 4, I should like to add a point of my own. I have never been able to understand why it was necessary to include changes to the rules of evidence in the Bill.
The Bill is about procedure and, although there are clearly blurred edges between the rules of procedure and the rules of evidence, the rules of evidence play a much more significant role in our law with respect to the protection of individual rights. That, of course, is more dramatically demonstrated in the criminal process than in the civil process, but nevertheless there are occasions in a civil trial when the rules of evidence can make all the difference to the rights of the litigant.
I wonder whether I may prevail on my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say a little more about the background to including the rules of evidence in paragraph 4; and why he feels it is necessary to subject something which can go to the heart of our constitution to procedures of negative affirmation. I bear in mind, of course, the very substantial concession he has already made to the notion of a purpose clause.
The Lord Chancellor: The principle behind this aspect of the proposal is the one my noble friend mentioned at the beginning; namely, that the spill-over

CWH 7
from procedure to evidence is a difficult boundary. Where is the boundary in a number of cases? I entirely agree that this Bill is primarily concerned with giving the rule committee the power to make rules of procedure. But there are quite a number of examples in which the nature of the evidence required can have a considerable effect on the rules of procedure. For example, any attempt to limit the situation so far as the number of experts are concerned could well have an effect on the procedure to be adopted. It is at the heart of the proposals of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf that that kind of thing should carefully be considered in relation to the overall procedure.
Perhaps I should say that underlying my approach is full confidence in the rule committee because the rule committee will contain two of the most senior of our civil law judges. Therefore, I would anticipate that Parliament could be confident that they would use these rules in order to perform the function which has been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the first of his amendments. But there are areas in which evidence can have an effect on the procedure which would have quite a substantial bearing on the nature of what the court could accomplish.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I support the proposal that the committee should have power to deal with the rules of evidence. The commercial court has always been regarded as one of the faster courts, if I may put it that way, and the only way it has achieved that is by "persuading" parties to waive the rules of evidence.
I can give the Committee two illustrations of how far that has gone. When I was appointed deputy chairman of Hampshire quarter sessions, I realised for the first time that I did not know anything about the rules of evidence because they had never been used in the commercial court whatever.
I can give a second illustration. I was appearing in that court before Mr Justice Diplock, as he then was, and my clients wished to prove that there had been a dock strike in Australia. For that purpose, in our simple-minded way, we produced the local Australian newspaper. My opponent, who was not familiar with the ways of the commercial court, rose to his feet and said that it was plainly inadmissible. Mr Justice Diplock thought for a moment and he said, "Yes, Mr. Smith, you are absolutely right. I propose, subject to anything further you may say, to adjourn this case for three months while we send a commission to Australia to investigate this matter and report back. You are fully entitled to rely upon the rules of evidence. They apply to this court as they do to any other. But before you press the point, I think you ought to remember that when the matter comes back, I have complete discretion as to the costs". The interloper decided that perhaps on the whole it was better to conform to the practice of the commercial court.
Those are merely illustrations. Many of them have been covered by rule changes already. But in this electronic age we may well meet situations in future where new ways of proving facts swim into our ken,
CWH 8
and it is desirable that the rule committee should be able to deal with them if the current judges of the commercial court are unable to bang heads together to the extent that the parties so agree.
I would be in favour of this. I do not think the committee would ever dream of altering rules such as privilege and the like, but in the field which I have indicated, there is scope for it having this power.
4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Nothing I have said in the amendments takes away from the Bill's proposals to modify the law of evidence. All I have said in Amendment No. 19 is that when that happens, it should be done expressly and not by implication. It would be ungracious for me to quibble with the gracious way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has dealt with the amendments I have put forward. However, when it comes to what I call the law of evidence rather than the rules of evidence as contained in the common law, I have no objection to those being modified on the principles set out in the Woolf Report as long as everyone knows that that is being done; first, that the rule committee knows that it is being done by expressly considering it; secondly, that Parliament realises that, whether by affirmative or negative resolution, it is considering such amendments; and thirdly, that the poor old practitioners know that it has happened and that no argument is left open about the modification of either an enactment or of common law when it comes to evidence. That is all I have to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF CHANGES TO CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM
(". All important changes to the civil justice system including the principles behind the new rules of court, are to be kept under review by the Civil Justice Council, the members of which shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall include representatives of the judiciary, the Courts Agency and Lord Chancellor's Department staff, legal practitioners (both barristers and solicitors), consumer organisations, advice agencies and other users of the courts.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 3 in the grouping is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Thomas of Gresford. The purpose of the amendment is to require a civil justice council, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to be established. In his interim and final reports, he advocated the establishment of,
"a continuing body with responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the implementation of my proposals."
In his final report, he expressed his disappointment that this important step had not yet been taken. He repeated that position in the Second Reading debate on 5th November. He said:
"The second concern is the absence of any reference to a civil justice council, the creation of which I recommended. I see the council as a central plank to my recommendations. It will be the

CWH 9
means of ensuring that a reformed civil justice system remains responsive to the needs of the public. It is also the necessary companion to a compact small rules committee".—[Official Report, 5/11/96; co1.622.]
From these Benches we support the establishment of such a council.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when replying to the debate on Second Reading, said:
"On the civil justice council, I appreciate what my noble and learned friend has proposed, but I do not think that we can get into that just yet. One of the functions of the council would he to ensure that affairs of civil justice remained prominent into the future. The profile of civil justice has been raised considerably and will continue to he raised while the new rules are being prepared and consulted on. I entirely agree that it is right to have the widest possible consultation on these rules. My noble and learned friend has carried out a lot of consultation already and I expect that many of the views that have been expressed will be taken into account by the rule committee when formulating the rules".—[Official Report, 5/11/96; col. 630.]
With respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I for one was not entirely clear what he was saying. I invite him to clarify his policy. Is it that he contemplates the establishment of a council in the future but not now? If so, when and in what circumstances?
It is true that Lord Woolf's reports have hugely raised the profile of civil justice, but we do not have in mind merely the raising of profiles. The purpose of the noble and learned Lord's reports is to effect dramatic changes that will work in practice. True enough, Lord Woolf s reviews involved to the full the majority of interests in the civil justice system, and his co-operative method of proceeding, along with his team, secured the general welcome in principle that his reports received.
However, as I have said before, the rule changes must surely only be regarded as a beginning. It is behaviour on the ground that must change so as to make resolution of disputes less adversarial, speedier and cheaper. The function of the council would be to continue the co-operative method, by which Lord Woolf and his team worked, into the practical development of the new system.
The function of the council would be to maintain a continuous overview of the system, to highlight the need for changes, to commission research, to put ideas to the new rule committee and the Lord Chancellor's Department, to assist the head of civil justice, to co-ordinate initiatives, both through practice directions and practice guides, and to monitor the impact of changes on the ground. An important area should be the development of pre-proceeding protocols, designed to help cases to settle before litigation has started, through the development of alternative dispute resolution approaches, in particular mediation, and through practice directions and guides.
I see the key point of Lord Woolf's proposal as this: in essence, the civil justice council should take up where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, leaves off. The way ahead should be a permanent body specifically charged with monitoring and progressively improving the civil justice system. The council would be a vehicle for contributions from all interest groups. It could work with user groups in local courts and in Divisions of the High Court, to identify problems and to recommend
CWH 10
reforms. It should provide a useful source of advice for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the senior judiciary and the rule committee. In essence, its task would be to ensure that what Lord Woolf has recommended actually happens in practice.
I have no particular affection for the precise text of the amendment standing in my name. Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hacking, may be a better expression of the principle of what is required. That is a matter to which we may have to return on Report. Today my objective is to invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to clarify his current thinking about why a council should not be established here and now and to clarify whether his present judgment is that it should be established in the future but for some reason not now. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: It may help if I state my position on this matter as clearly as I can at present. I have made clear that I appreciate the need for some consultative machinery to drive forward the reforms of the civil justice system that are necessary. In the implementation strategy document, which your Lordships have, I stated that such a body should provide a two-way channel of communication and should allow for representation of all the participants in the civil justice system. In my implementation strategy I also stated that I was not yet satisfied that a civil justice council would be the most effective way to achieve active participation in the reforms and I still remain in doubt about that on the assumption that the council is structured on the lines of these amendments.
I certainly do not wish my comments to be taken as implying that I am against a consultative forum—far from it. I wish to ensure that the most effective body possible be established: one that is not unwieldy or bureaucratic; one that has a well defined purpose and role to play and is of sufficient size to be effective—that is, sufficiently small to be effective. My department's Access to Justice strategy committee which includes the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, is currently exploring possible models for just such a body and I am very grateful to receive views from others of how such a body should operate because so far that particular aspect of the matter has not, for obvious reasons, been examined in detail.
Your Lordships are aware, I am sure, that in many courts user committees are already established and I believe they have proved to be extremely effective. Indeed, my noble and learned friend, Lord Woolf, is today involved in discussions of just such a committee in connection with the Court of Appeal. There is a great deal to be said for trying to develop a structure in which these committees which are at the user level, the court level, should be able to work together in a co-ordinated structure. Therefore, I am actively exploring the question of models for a body to deal with these matters. While there is general agreement that a consultative body is required precisely, the questions of how it should work, how it could be most effective and how it should relate to the rule committee still need to be resolved.

CWH 11
One of the models that I have in mind as a possibility, but it needs to be varied considerably from the present arrangement, is the relationship between the Supreme Court Procedure Committee which was developed, as it were, to look at matters from a strategic point of view and see what might be required, and the Supreme Court Rule Committee which was charged with trying to put these matters into more detailed form. These are all ideas which have something to commend them.
It is clear that this council need not be enshrined in a statute and it would probably work more effectively if it were capable of being changed from time to time in the light of experience. It is for that reason that so far I have not felt able to support a statutory provision for a civil justice council precisely in the way proposed. There is something to be said for trying to see, as we work through the proposals of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, just what sort of structure would best serve the purpose which he has in mind. As I said, it need not be a statutory structure. That is the position that I hold on the matter at present and I hope I have now made clear what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, found unclear in what I said at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The civil procedure rule committee would obviously be concerned with the setting of rules. What is necessary is to have a body which monitors how those rules prove to be effective. I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has accepted in principle the need for a consulting body. But that body must surely include judges who will give teeth to such a body, representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department who can give a different aspect, practitioners who have to work the rules day-by-day, consumer organisations whose members are affected, and other users of the court. When one simply lists the people who are necessary for such a body one ends up with precisely the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has put forward in his amendment, and which perhaps has been expressed rather more fully in Amendment No. 3. I support the amendments.
Lord Ackner: As I understand it, the civil justice council was meant to be more than consultative machinery. It was meant to be there to monitor how successful these new ideas were, to voice criticism if criticism was desirable, and to take an active part in ensuring that the new machinery worked. That is more than consultative.
Perhaps I may give an example as to what I envisage one of its qualities might be? Case management will depend on having enough judges to do the case management and enough judges of the right quality. The monitoring of the scheme might show that there are not enough judges. The monitoring of the scheme might show that people of the wrong quality were being recruited, or that the training was inadequate. That may throw up problems about resources. There would be a greater prospect of those resources being provided if you had such a body going public and indicating in detail the deficiencies. It would enable the Lord Chancellor's
CWH 12
Department, which would be represented on that body, to bring the necessary pressure to bear, if pressure was necessary, upon the Treasury to make sure those resources were provided. Without such a body, what will be the source—who will be the spokesman—to ensure that the new machinery is moving forward expeditiously and competently? The body would carry, I should have thought, considerable clout. In order to emphasise its status I should have thought it essential that it did feature in the statute. Those are my respectful submissions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a little puzzled, if I may say so. The rule committee is well constituted and proposes the rules. The amendment suggests that its proposal, before it could ever be implemented, should be sent to the civil justice council. But what sort of power has it? It is to keep under review what exactly happens. If it looks at it and does not like it, what happens? Is it sent back to the rules committee? It does not to me to have been wholly well thought out.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: What is of the first importance to appreciate is that the rules committee is concerned to develop new and better rules, and we will be considering in the course of our deliberations this afternoon various amendments about the rules committee itself, its composition, its manner of proceeding, whether it meets at all and what quorum is required before the committee can put forward changes to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his approval.
Under discussion as a result of this amendment is a wholly different proposition. It is, as the terms of the amendment make plain, that the important changes to the civil justice system deriving from the new rules should be kept under review by a civil justice council along with others recommended by the noble and learned Lord. The council should comprise a membership of the kind indicated in the amendment and appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and also of course include representatives of consumer organisations, advice agencies and other users of the court.
Therefore, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, it is not about the making of new beneficial rules, but about monitoring and giving useful advice as to how successful these rule changes are proving in practice. So in a sense the co-operative approach involved in Lord Woolf's inquiries, about as inclusive of all interest groups as one could contemplate, will continue into measuring success in practice. I note that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack accepts that some consultative machinery to drive the changes forward is necessary.
We have known since the publication of Lord Woolf's reports precisely what he proposes. That, therefore, is the only candidate in the frame and I ask: what is the noble and learned Lord's positive position? What in his view would be most effective, if not the civil justice council as proposed? With great respect to this Committee, what is significantly absent from the noble and learned Lord's reply to the amendment is a positive proposal. We have Lord Woolf's positive proposal and we await another positive proposal. We are

CWH 13
told that there are user committees at court level which could be co-ordinated in some way, but it is not necessary for that to be by' means of a statutory body, although of course a statutory body commands much greater authority than any looser and more informal arrangement. So I have to confess that from these Benches we are disappointed by this response. We will have to consider whether this is a matter that should be resumed upon Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Rule Committee]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
The noble and learned Lord said: There has been grouped with Amendment No. 4, as far as my amendments go, Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8. These are simple and uncontroversial amendments designed with the agreed purpose in mind to improve the expertise of the rules committee. The amendment simply seeks to increase the number of practitioners on the rules committee by the addition of one extra advocate and one extra litigator. The reason for that is simply this: if there are three of each instead of two of each, it would enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint an advocate of suitable seniority with experience of Chancery work in the High Court and the Court of Appeal—and no doubt a senior member of the Chancery Bar would be appointed—to appoint an advocate of suitable seniority with experience on the common law side both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal—and, by parity of reasoning, one would expect a senior member of the common law Bar to be appointed—and then, thirdly, an advocate not necessarily of the same seniority as the former two, with particular experience of county court advocacy. By this means, there would be three advocate members and three litigator members who could be expected to have a collective experience of most types of cases heard in the Supreme Court and the county courts.
I would stress that it is particularly important to bear in mind the wide range of cases in relation to the Chancery Division. It embraces trusts, real property, wills, intellectual property, copyright and company law. On the common law side, it embraces, among other things, commercial work, construction, personal injury, professional negligence, judicial review; and of course the county courts embrace practically everything. This is solely designed to add to the expertise of the committee and involves only the addition of two extra persons. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I strongly support every word the noble and learned Lord has said and all the amendments in this group. As a practitioner I have an interest to declare; but it is a very small interest because I am not likely to be appointed to any of these committees.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 7 which stands in my name. With your Lordships'
CWH 14
leave, I am minded also to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 within this grouping and I am further minded to speak to Amendment No. 12 which is first in the next grouping, for the sake of economy.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 9. The purpose of the amendment is to give effect to the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that the membership of the civil procedure rule committee should include persons with the expertise to represent the interests described in Amendment No. 9. It is important that the Bill recognises these interests and provides for an involvement by the consumer sector and the advice sector. Again, then, the purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to carry forward into the composition of the bodies to be established under the Act the inclusive approach that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, himself adopted.
In his final report, the noble and learned Lord recorded that:
"To help carry forward the work on the new rules, I set up a new working group. It incorporated judicial, consumer and lay advisory viewpoints".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, rightly observed:
"This is the first time representatives of consumer and advice organisations have been directly involved in preparation of rules of court".
He went on to record that such representatives should have a permanent role as a counterbalance to the professional legal viewpoint in the new rule-making committee which will be needed to enact the combined rules.
I entirely appreciate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may well intend that the,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts",
referred to in Clause 2(2)(g), may include persons whose experience derives from the consumer and advice sectors. The provision, however, does not say so in express terms.
The amendment proposes an increase in that number from two to four. The rule committee, I would suggest, as defined by Clause 2(2), is simply too lawyer-dominated. The modest increase from two to four in Clause 2(2)(g) is necessary to ensure adequate representation from the relevant interest groups. There should be a sufficient number of lay members to ensure that all relevant interests are represented. I do hope that the noble and learned Lord will demonstrate the openness of mind on these amendments which he assured us on Second Reading that he always has. I do not believe that the addition from two to four would make the committee less effective. It would make it more representative of the interest groups, whose confidence in the new methods of managing and conducting litigation it is necessary in the public interest be secured.
I now refer to Amendment No. 11. It is a variant on Amendment No. 9. It leaves Clause 2(2)(g) in place, that is to say,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts",
but it adds two additional persons,

CWH 15
"with knowledge of advice and consumer issues".
Amendment No. 12, to which, with the leave of the Committee, I shall also, for the sake of brevity, refer, then prescribes the organisations which the Lord Chancellor must consult prior to appointing these two additional persons. The Bill as drafted achieves consultation only in respect of appointees from the judiciary and the legal professions. For myself I think that the absence of a requirement to consult the consumer and advice sectors sends the wrong signal and we should change that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was clear in his recommendations that what is required is lay members,
"who can advance consumer, advisory or other lay viewpoints as a counterbalance to the professional legal interest".
What this requires, if his recommendation is truly to be accepted, is representatives from organisations that are in the business of advising and assisting litigants in civil courts on a regular basis. The present statutory language,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts",
could cover retired judges, retired lawyers, legal academics and legal journalists. All of those would seem perfectly well to fall within that language. What we suggest is that it is important that some means be established on the face of the Bill for ensuring an adequate number—we say four—of representatives of those interest groups which have a great deal to offer and on whose competence much will depend in carrying the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, into effect with success. We say either have four persons, such as are described in Amendment No. 9, or keep the two, as described in Clause 2(2)(g), but add the further two prescribed for in Amendment No. 11.
I now refer to Amendment No. 7 which is the first of the amendments in this grouping of Amendments Nos. 4 to 11 that stands in my name on the Marshalled List. The effect of that amendment would be to increase from two to four the persons referred to in Clause 2(2)(f). Let me say straight away that I entirely appreciate the need to have a rule committee that is not unnecessarily large and, in consequence, unwieldy; I quite accept that. What must be remembered, however, is that the new committee will be making court rules across a whole area of civil litigation at a time when practice in civil litigation is becoming increasingly specialised. Dinosaurs such as myself regret that, but it is, I fear, a fact of modern legal practice.
The extent of specialisation by solicitors in comparatively narrow areas of legal practice must be appreciated. The Law Society encourages specialisation by practitioners through accreditation of skilled and experienced solicitors who join specialised panels. This helps in the delivery of quality service which benefits the clients and the courts. However, old-style generalists may regret that. The plain fact is that there are only two such solicitors on the rule committee. If there are only two such solicitors on the rule committee, whole areas of practice will not be adequately covered.
CWH 16
I have endeavoured to summarise my reasons for putting the amendments before your Lordships.
Baroness Wilcox: The words of my Amendment No. 10 are a little more precise and specific, and I did not think this would happen sitting, as I am, in front of lawyers. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that we are talking about the same sort of thing: consumer representation. We are talking about people with experience and knowledge of the advice sector, so my purpose in the amendment is to add two members to the new civil procedure rule committee—one member from a consumer organisation and one from the lay sector. I have been most specific in the wording on that.
I welcome the inclusion of two lay members on the committee in Clause 2(2)(g). That is a significant step forward. I believe that the wording of that clause,
"Persons with knowledge of the working of the courts",
will allow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a free hand to appoint two lay people representing frequent court users such as small businesses. In addition to those two places I believe that there should be places specifically earmarked for the consumer and advice sector. This would implement the intentions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who said in his final report Access to Justice that representatives from consumer advice organisations should have a permanent role as a counterbalance to the professional and legal viewpoint on the new rule-making committee which will be needed to enact the combined rules—an intention that I fully support.
I believe that this amendment will help to ensure that, wherever possible, the weaker party in a civil dispute is not disadvantaged by court procedures or practices. It is essential to have on the committee people with direct contact with inexperienced litigants. The Bill will provide the mechanisms for much-needed change. I appeared to spend the whole of my six years as chairman of the National Consumer Council doing nothing but think about access to justice. In fact, in the first two days I was working for the National Consumer Council I well remember being confronted by the head of the Bar Council because of the work that we had done on access to justice, or the cab rank rule and on allowing solicitors into court. Now, here I stand, making absolutely sure that we take it just that little bit further so that all of us can understand what is going on in the courts.
Please let us seize this opportunity to make certain that litigants are able to participate more fully as their cases progress through the legal system and lay members on the new committee will ensure that the court procedures are accessible to possible litigants. If, as I earnestly hope, this amendment is agreed, the question is: would the result be that there are too many members on this committee? I think not. The committee would comprise 14 members; 15 if we listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; or 16 because the Law Society wants two extra litigators. Given that few committees ever, in my experience, meet with their full membership, I believe that 14 or 16 would be a viable number. Four lay members would prevent a situation where one or two lay members were facing a battery of

CWH 17
formidable lawyers and judges and possibly then feeling inhibited from making a very valuable input into the committee. I hope briefly that I have been able to convince you that my words are irresistible.
The Lord Chancellor: It is always very difficult to resist proposals so eloquently put as those which have been put before us in connection with this group of amendments, Nos. 4 to 11.
In the consultation paper that I issued before the Bill was published I proposed a membership of 17 in the rule committee. If effect were given to all these amendments, it would come to 17. I reduced the number because the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation urged that such a committee would be unwieldy. That is why I revised my ideas and came to the conclusion, in the light of the consultation, that 12 would be the correct number. I would be somewhat reluctant to increase this number.
As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, legal practice has become increasingly specialised these days both at the Bar and among solicitors, and even among the advice agencies there are now specialist advice agencies of various kinds. It is quite impossible to have a rule committee that is representative of all those interests unless it is very large indeed, and that is why the rule committee must work by consultation. It is why I believe that some consultative machinery is required and why it is consultative machinery which will bring people along with it and try to help them to feel that the movement is in the right direction.
I do not believe that it is possible to have a system that is completely representative of all the various interests. What we need are people who are sufficiently skilled to understand the consultation and then to adopt rules which are reasonably effective. Of course, one of the ideas is to have general rules which will be applicable across the board and then more specialist rules which may apply to particular types of litigation—for example, in the field of industrial property. It is for those reasons that I feel pretty strongly that, as a result of the consultation—and surely one does not consult for the purpose of ignoring the consultation—it would be a mistake to add to the total number that I have in mind.
I turn to particular matters. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has particular experience of the county court. I would be reluctant to appoint to the committee lawyers, none of whom had experience of the county court. On the other hand, I would be looking for the best candidates available and they would certainly be able to appreciate the problems of the county court as a result of consultation.
So far as consumers, advice agencies and so on are concerned, I originally proposed that there should be three lay members on the committee as part of the 17. As a result of the consultation, all the respondents to the consultation paper argued that two lay representatives were sufficient apart from one notable organisation that my noble friend will be aware of; namely, the National Consumer Council. It argued that that was not so. The balance on consultation was that two lay representatives were sufficient, and it is for that reason that I have adopted this.
CWH 18
I am certainly anxious that this power should be as wide as possible and I would certainly wish to include representatives from the consumer world and the advice sector. There are others, as has been mentioned—the business world, industry, academics and possibly others—and it might be unfortunate unduly to modify the definition.
It is important, in view of what my noble friend Lady Wilcox said, that those who do come forward as lay people are able to hold their own with the other members of the committee, and I believe that knowledge and experience is a good basis for that. It is therefore of importance that the basic requirement should be some knowledge, however that may be gained.
I am certainly willing to consider improving the definition of lay members further, and particularly perhaps to talk about knowledge of how the court works and how that impacts on lay users of the system. Something of that kind might help to open this out. I certainly mean it to be absolutely open to include all the various possibilities that I have mentioned.
It is difficult to satisfy all these requirements together, and it is for this reason that we have put the Bill forward in its present form. I am certainly willing carefully to consider all the recommendations that have been made this afternoon, but I believe we want to have a committee that works. One of the later amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is to move requires the committee to meet. One of the difficulties of the present Supreme Court Rule Committee is that it does not meet, as it is really too large. My noble and learned friend who was in the senior responsibility when I came to office felt that it was not necessary to have meetings; it was better to put these things on paper, because people could not be assembled.
There is a good deal of benefit in having a meeting in which opinions are shared and when people can develop ideas on how something might be tackled. Therefore, I am keen that this committee should be one that works by meetings and works by real detailed consultation within the committee itself as well as a wider consultation. It is for these reasons that I feel somewhat reluctant to agree to an addition which would bring us to 17 again in the light of the consultation. It is not easy to see a compromise which solves all of these problems. However, I remain open-minded and if a suitable compromise can be found, I would be very happy to adopt it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me. I have been looking at Clause 2 while he has been talking. I see that the civil procedure rule committee should consist of:
"(a) the Master of the Rolls,
(b) the Vice-Chancellor, and
(c) the persons currently appointed by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (2)."
I cannot understand how anybody can be currently appointed when the Act comes into force. It seems to me that he must by definition be appointed afterwards.

CWH 19
But I have probably got this wrong. The reason why I started looking at this was to see whether there was any limitation on the numbers. Normally on a committee of this sort the appointing officer or body would be required to include people in various categories and there might well be a maximum number so that they had a discretion on whether or not to appoint additional members. That might be a way out of the difficulty, because the noble and learned Lord said that his original thoughts were 17, but that consultation had brought him down to 12 (which shows what a mistake it is to consult!) and it may be that in the light of experience he would want to go back to his first thought of 17. He could do that if the mandatory categories were limited to 12 but he had some elbow room. He looked puzzled, and perhaps my first point may have been entirely wrong. It is the word "currently" that worries me. Clause 2(1)(c) states:
"the person currently appointed by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (2)".
Does that mean from time to time?
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson is of course right that at this stage the Lord Chancellor "must appoint" under subsection (2). Subsection (1)(c) is intended to define the civil procedure rules committee as it is from time to time. Therefore the committee consists of the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor, and the persons who at the time of considering it are,
"appointed by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (2)".
The idea is to define the device for making sure just how the constitution of the rules committee is defined. In a sense, as it is from time to time, those who are "currently appointed" is a correct description. However, it does make possible going to a larger committee if practice showed that to be necessary. It is difficult to accept the principle of anything without consultation as well as the other remark of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I feel obliged to say that I find the Lord Chancellor's answers disappointing. He assured us of open-mindedness in his Second Reading speech and in his reply, but I have to suggest, with respect, that I have not seen much outward or visible sign of it, nor any words that suggest it.
My over-riding point is that the rules committee is too lawyer-dominated. That is a specific point which has not been responded to. My second point is that the expression,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts"
does not necessarily involve representatives of the consumer or advice sectors at all. I have heard no reply to the proposition that it could exclude these persons and could cover the examples I gave of retired judges, lawyers, legal academics, legal journalists.
The noble and learned Lord said that consultation has indicated that the overall number he puts forward is right. Let that be, but that is what consultation may have suggested. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will pay equal attention to what is said in this Committee to what may result from consultation. Also, the overall
CWH 20
number says nothing about composition and I, for my part, would respectfully suggest that there is a serious sense in making the number somewhat larger in order specifically to recognise the role and the utility of an involvement of consumer and advisory groups, and a specific number from those. I would go further. I respectfully submit that it is bad politics not to do so.
It is all very well to say, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that this rule committee will consult widely. It may be that it will, but a consultation is no substitute for representation on the rule committee. Unless the noble and learned Lord adjusts his position—we would certainly co-operate in an amendment which gave specific recognition to the consumer and advisory groups—I have to submit that huge disappointment will be caused to the consumer groups and to the advice sector, and the attitude of Parliament will be seen in the sharpest contrast to the inclusive approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—an approach which went so far as to secure acceptance for what he was proposing.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may reply briefly to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said. I accept that the rule committee will be obliged, and no doubt will wish, to consult widely, but there is no point in consulting widely unless one has the necessary expertise to evaluate the advice one gets following that consultation. It seems to me to be cutting the barrister and solicitor representation down to the bone to say in regard to each of them that there should be one and only one who is a specialist in the Chancery field, High Court and Court of Appeal, one and only one who is an expert in the common law—trials of first instance in the Court of Appeal—both of whom are bound to be senior silks, and one who is an expert in the county court. Of course the two silks, if they are silks, involved in the Chancery and the common law work will at one time have done county court work, but "one time" will probably be 15 or 20 years back. To rely upon their expertise to evaluate the advice they get on county courts is asking for the blind to be led by those whom they cannot follow. My submission is that there is no great attempt to widen to any real extent the numbers, and the difference between 12, 14, 15 or 17 is neither here nor there. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment without prejudice to my activities at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 12 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Civil Procedure Rule Committee shall, when making or amending Civil Procedure Rules, consult such interested organisations and individuals as the Committee considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 is a modest amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that the committee consults with outside organisations about new rules or changes to existing rules. The amendment is careful to provide that the consultation will be as considered appropriate by the committee. Thus, the consultation

CWH 21
will not be required for all rule changes but only for those substantial rule changes that will involve significant changes in policy or practice. Here again, we look for evidence of the open mindedness of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
If changes to the rules are to be practicable and workable then it is vital that practitioners and others with detailed knowledge of the system are involved in their preparation. That cannot be achieved merely by having a rule committee which itself is in theory sufficiently representative, although your Lordships have already heard on the previous grouping my submissions as to why what is proposed is not a sufficiently representative rule committee because of the exclusion of a specific recognition of the interests of the consumer and advisory sectors.
At present the position is that there is only consultation on proposed rule changes shortly before they are due to be introduced. After the rule committee has discussed in private the perceived problem and the options for solving it there must be early and meaningful consultation. It is perhaps unkind to mention it but the disaster of County Court Rule 17(11) would have been avoided by adequate consultation. That was the rule that provided for the automatic striking out of claims in the county court if the timetable provided for by the rules was not strictly followed. Poor rule drafting led to thousands of appeals and prolonged consequential litigation.
The new rule committee should really proceed democratically, as the Law Commission does. It should announce that a particular area of procedure is to be reviewed, invite ideas on that area and then consult in an open way on the options before—I emphasise the word "before"—making any firm recommendations.
I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 18. It is a variant on Amendment No. 13 but it makes specific the kind of interest groups and organisations which ought to be consulted. Significantly, it expressly involves the consumer groups and the advice agencies in consultation. I beg to move Amendment No. 13. I have spoken to Amendment No. 18. I expressed preference, however, for Amendment No. 18 because of the recognition it gives to the important role of consumer groups and advice agencies.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned my open mindedness. I am happy, subject to drafting matters, to accept an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 13. I shall certainly take account of the rather fuller wording of Amendment No. 18, but certainly Amendment No. 13, subject to drafting, would be acceptable as far as I am concerned.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I desire to acknowledge the first triumph of this Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight").
CWH 22
The noble Lord said: Included in this grouping are Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17. Under Clause 2(6) of the Bill the rules need only be signed by four members of the committee in order to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor. The purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to provide that when rules are made they must be signed by at least eight members of the committee.
It is unsatisfactory for only four members—one-third of the committee of 12—to be able to agree a new rule of court for submission to the Lord Chancellor. With the present provision, either four of the six judges on the committee could be the signatories; alternatively, the two barristers and solicitors; alternatively, two solicitors and two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts.
In those circumstances rules would not have been made for submission to the Lord Chancellor in a way that reflected the views of a reasonable cross-section of the interested parties. I believe that the amendment is all the more important in the absence of a statutory requirement for the rule committee to meet or to consult.
I now speak to Amendment No. 15. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if, contrary to Amendment No. 14, the number remains at four and does not become eight, at least one of the four must be one of the two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts; otherwise rule changes could be submitted to the Lord Chancellor by the lawyers with no lay involvement at all.
I now speak to Amendment No. 17 and look forward to the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to it. Amendment No. 17 would insert a new clause obliging the rule committee, when making rules, actually to meet to discuss and agree them. Any member of the public studying the amendments we are considering today and reading the Hansard report of the Committee's proceedings would be rather surprised that under the Bill the rule committee is not under any such obligation. In fact, the present Supreme Court Committee does not meet; it conducts its business solely by post. In effect, it is not a committee, but it may well be a group of individuals who are invited to endorse proposed rule changes put forward by others.
I recognise that committees work best provided they are small enough and well briefed and chaired; but I believe only if they meet and thrash out problems in discussion with a view to arriving at a consensus. Again, I hark back to the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, conducted his inquiries. That is the way in which his inquiry team conducted its business. That is one of the many reasons why the proposals of the noble and learned Lord have been so warmly welcomed by so many groups.
I do not believe that it would be onerous or expensive for the proposed new rule committee of 12 to arrange to meet three or four times a year, or as necessary, to discuss and agree rule changes. I also believe that it would give a properly informed public much greater confidence in what is going on. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I rise to support Amendment No. 14. I would respectfully submit that it is a very odd situation

CWH 23
in which we should legislate so that rules are allowed to pass into law when well under half the relevant committee is not prepared to assent to them. If the number is increased to eight, then it will be more than half if the number becomes 14, and half if it becomes 16 and only just under a half if the outsize number referred to of 17 is the relevant case. It will not have escaped the Lord Chancellor for one moment that what is proposed may save him from potential embarrassment of a high order if he receives, in order to decide whether to allow or disallow a rule, the information that only one-third or less of the committee has passed it, and he then has to consider the personalities who have decided for and those who have decided against. So for both those reasons, I would strongly support what is proposed.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I find myself in the curious position of wondering whether this really matters. I say that for this reason. I first joined the rules committee as a junior, I was again a member of the rules committee as a silk and certainly I held various judicial offices. When I was a member as a junior, we had regular meetings at which matters were discussed, and I believe things were much simpler in those days. As complexity came back, the 64 dollar question in every case was: was the Lord Chancellor at the time—and I am not commenting on the present incumbent—prepared to agree a rule change. If he was not, let us not waste our time. If he was, that was fine and probably everybody would agree about it. So you had a culture, as I recollect, where rule changes, although put up by an individual, in fact came down from the Lord Chancellor for approval, because only if he wanted them would they get through. It was for that reason that it really seemed more sensible to agree to written representations rather than meeting together.
I would welcome a change in the methods of working, but I am not suggesting changes in the statute. It might need a lead from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say, "I really would like to discuss these matters with you, and I have an open mind". Then I believe you would get a situation in which it was possible to have meetings, and there would be a changed atmosphere.
I am not worried about the numbers here, because the idea of any Lord Chancellor approving a minority view of the committee, the others refusing to sign, seems to me to be inconceivable. So I do not believe the numbers matter.
Lord Meston: I wish to add a word of support for Amendment No. 17. It came as a revelation to me at any rate during the Courts and Legal Services Bill to realise that the Supreme Court Rule Committee did not actually meet, even on quite important amendments to the rules. It certainly seems to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, that most people in the outside world would assume that, when a statute provides that something shall be decided by, or referred to, a committee, such a committee would physically meet to discuss the proposal before it, each member of the
CWH 24
committee contributing his expertise and perhaps altering the proposal in some way in the course of discussion.
That does not in fact happen as I understand it, but the proposed rule or change of rule is simply circulated to a sufficient number of members of the committee as may constitute a quorum, together with an explanatory memorandum. That seems to me to be, with all due respect to the undoubted other demands on the time of the people involved, an unsatisfactory way of dealing with matters of this importance.
Here we are going to be faced with a complete new set of rules, and it is likely that, however much care goes into producing those rules in the first place, the subsequent amendments to those rules may not just be minor amendments, but may be substantive amendments. It is, therefore, of considerable importance that a sufficient number of the committee physically meet to discuss not only the first set of rules, but any substantive amendments thereafter.
I can see that where there are, as sometimes happens in these cases, minor amendments to correct drafting or deal with technical matters, it would be unnecessary to have a full meeting of the committee. But surely it must be right that not only the first set of rules, but substantive amendments thereafter, should be the product of a committee which physically meets.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I rise to support Amendment No. 17. The position as described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, suggests that there was a top-down culture in the past whereby rules were handed down to the committee to approve. I would have thought that the whole thrust of the Woolf reforms, which have come like a breath of fresh air to practitioners and no doubt to court users, is to ensure that reforms come from the bottom up. That is why we are talking about having consumer groups and advice centres participating in the deliberations of the proposed committee, and also why we are talking about having a civil justice council, so that there can be participation from those who use the services rather than those who administer them. I support Amendment No. 17.
The Lord Chancellor: I have found the method of working on the Supreme Court Rule Committee somewhat unsatisfactory. On the other hand, the County Court Rule Committee has worked because it can and because it is reasonably small. That has something to do with the membership and the size of the committee which consists of all the top judges. They have other responsibilities and it is difficult to arrange meetings. This goes back to the point about the size of the committee, which was discussed. I am entirely in favour of a committee that meets to discuss those matters; that is what I am aiming at, and I believe that that is what we shall get.
So far as concerns top-down, I would not like the committee to be a talking shop for the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor had a chance of indicating his views on this, but the ideas did not come from him; the ideas came from others, at least the good ones! I am

CWH 25
very content to accept Amendment No. 14 and to change the number from four to eight. My purpose has been that these rules apply to both the county courts and the Supreme Court. It will be made clear in the job-descriptions that meetings will be the normal practice. It is for that reason that my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, to whom I alluded, attaches no particular importance to the quorum. However, I am perfectly content to increase the number to eight. I hope that it will not be necessary to move Amendment No. 17 because the whole emphasis will be on a committee that can meet. I undertake to make it abundantly clear that, in making appointments to the committee, the intention is that it will meet regularly.
Of course, some amendments, as has been mentioned, could be agreed in correspondence. But certainly I am very content to accept eight as the quorum.
So far as vetoes are concerned, I am not sure that that will be wise. I am very content to accept Amendment No. 14.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am heartened, from gathering evidence throughout the procedures of the committee, by an open-mindedness on the part of the noble and learned Lord. I take it that Amendment No. 14, in the form as moved in Committee, will be accepted.
As far as Amendment No. 17 goes, if the noble and learned Lord considers that the committee ought to meet, ought he not to accept Amendment No. 17, which is the only means of ensuring that it does meet and which obliges it to meet? Meanwhile, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 14 unless the noble and learned Lord indicates that he will accept it here and now.
The Lord Chancellor: I accept it here and now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The Civil Procedure Rule Committee must publish from time to time information as to the discharge of its functions.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the rule committee should from time to time publish information about its operations. I cannot think that it will be excessively burdensome for the rule committee to comply with that obligation. I have in mind that it should publish information about what it is doing, and why, which intelligent laymen can understand.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wanted a simplified and combined set of rules giving effect to the clear objectives he defined in his reports. The object of this amendment would be to keep the committee, which one hopes will meet, up to the mark, and require it to publish information about its doings. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf recommended that the head of civil justice should issue an annual report. The head of civil justice, as the Vice-Chancellor, will be a member of this committee. That report would be a more suitable medium for detailing the rules committee work than a
CWH 26
stand-alone report. Once the main body of the rules is changed, there might not be a tremendous amount happening from time to time. I know that the Vice-Chancellor intends to carry forward this recommendation. My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson led the way in this by publishing an annual report for the Court of Appeal. That is an extremely useful and valuable method of drawing attention to its work, which has been carried on by his successors.
The head of civil justice will report. As I understand it, he will carry forward the recommendation. I believe it, would be right to cover in that report any work that the rules committee is doing in the period covered by the report from time to time. I hope that will be an efficient way of dealing with this matter.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: In the light of the response of the noble and learned Lord, which on this point I find entirely satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Section 2: supplementary]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 25, leave out from ("to") to end of line 26 and insert ("approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: As I said at Second Reading, what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, proposed, if not quite a revolution in how civil litigation has been conducted, is certainly a transformation in the culture of civil litigation. Nor should the re-drafting of two cumbersome sets of rules into a single, simplified set be allowed to conceal what is truly a dramatic transformation in the whole culture of civil litigation which will affect millions of citizens.
The purpose of this amendment is to contend that Parliament should not be by-passed in the approval of these major changes. As a general proposition, I do not say that they should be subject to the same approval procedure as routine statutory instruments which introduce minor changes of a regulatory character. The transformation in the culture and practice of civil litigation should not be carried into effect without full debate in both Houses of Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack demonstrated a sensitivity on this point at Second Reading when he said that,
"I agree, of course, that the main change is a big one. We shall have to see whether there is some way of dealing with that. I would be perfectly prepared to undertake that, once the rules are formulated, it would be appropriate to have a debate on their detail in this House … before the instrument that would bring them into effect could be laid."—[Official Report, 5/11/96; col. 630.]
As I understood the noble and learned Lord in our discussions on Amendment No. 1, he was signifying—I shall be as particular as I can and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will either confirm or correct my understanding—that his intention is that the affirmative resolution procedure would apply where rules emanating from the rules committee had the effect of modifying any enactment. He will correct me if I am

CWH 27
wrong, but I believe that that would call for an amendment which I anticipate the Government would bring forth; otherwise his position is that the negative resolution procedure would apply to rule changes. Subject to one qualification only, for our part we find that position satisfactory.
I should like also to hear the noble and learned Lord, in responding to this amendment, formally renew the undertaking which he gave on Second Reading. Perhaps he would give some indication as to the Government's position in the other place—that is, the elected Chamber—where plainly there should be a full debate. Whether or not the new rules modify enactments, they should be subject to full debate in both Houses of Parliament so that Parliament has the opportunity to express its view on what all sides agree is intended to be a transformation of the culture of civil litigation.
The Lord Chancellor: I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has said in relation to the proposal to modify the Bill in order to provide for affirmative resolution procedure if the rules repeal or amend an existing enactment. I also undertake that when the rule committee has completed its deliberations on the substantial rules required to give effect to Lord Woolis proposals, the Government will provide for debate in both Houses of Parliament so that the rule committee will have an opportunity of having the views of Members of Parliament in both Houses before finally adopting the rules. I believe that this is an effective way of bringing Parliament into the matter at a stage when it will be possible to give real effect to the concerns that might be expressed by Members of Parliament. So I undertake as Lord Chancellor that that would be done. The committee, I believe, felt that it was a satisfactory way of proceeding. I pointed out, and I believe it to be the fact, that the alternative proposal was to have an affirmative resolution for the first exercise of the rule-making power. It is quite possible that something fairly small might be the first exercise of the rule-making power in order to prepare the way—for example, by pilots—for testing some of the rules. So it is not particularly effective in the context of this particular Bill to have that kind of procedure, and I believe that what I am proposing is a good and practical procedure for dealing with the matter. I am glad that it was accepted by the committee of which my noble friend is a distinguished member. I would, therefore, put that formally on the record now as a government undertaking to apply to both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: On that basis, with pleasure I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power of courts to make orders for preserving evidence, etc.]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 21:
CWH 28
Page 3, line 18, at end insert ("or
(c) the delivery up of property which is or may be the subject-matter of the proceedings or as to which any question arises or may arise in the proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21 and speak to Amendment No. 26. These two amendments accompany Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, all in my name, which are in separate groupings, but are related. I hope that it is convenient to mention, in moving Amendment No. 21, what the broad purpose of all the amendments is. I fear that in proposing the amendments, even at this hour, it may be necessary to take a little time because of the importance of the subject.
The broad purpose of all the amendments is to meet the basic concern that putting the Anton Piller jurisdiction on a new and clear statutory basis, which is plainly sensible, and specifying in detail the precise orders that the court may make creates a real risk that the language of Clause 6 will have the effect of confining the jurisdiction more narrowly than the current decisions of the court have defined it.
When statute confers discretionary powers on judges, it can do so generally or particularly. The general mode was applied by the Supreme Court Act 1991, Section 37(1). By that provision, Parliament provided for a judicial power to grant injunctions where just and convenient to do so. Clause 6, however, adopts a particular model but has failed to get the particulars right.
Experienced practitioners in the intellectual property field are acutely concerned that an unintended effect of Clause 6 may be to cut down the ambit of this salutary jurisdiction—the Anton Piller jurisdiction—and it is to prevent that happening that I am proposing the amendments in the subsequent groupings, Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. These amendments, however—I am moving Amendment No. 21 and speaking to Amendment No. 26—invite the Committee to take the opportunity of improving the existing jurisdiction in one important respect where experience shows it to be required.
I apologise again for the detail in which it will be necessary to move all the amendments in this and the subsequent groupings, but it is important that this valuable jurisdiction be not diminished but, if at all possible, improved. It is desirable to explain myself in full so that Hansard reports what I believe is right to commend to the Committee and so that it can be considered before Report. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is minded to accept the amendments in principle, or any one of them, I shall of course be happy before Report to correspond with him about the precise form of any amendments that he might consider to be desirable.
I deal, therefore, with these two amendments in this grouping first. They are designed to effect improvements in the Anton Piller jurisdiction; all the other amendments on this subject in my name are designed to ensure that the Anton Piller jurisdiction is not unwittingly reduced.
Amendment No. 21 concerns Clause 6(1). The existing Clause 6(1) recognises only two of the three vital functions of an Anton Piller order. The third crucial function is to obtain delivery up to the complainant or his solicitors of property owned by the claimant. That was fully recognised even in the earliest Anton Piller orders. I refer to EMI Records Limited v Pandit [1975] 1 WLR 302. In that a case a distinction was drawn in the form of the order granted between a right merely to inspect material not owned by the plaintiff and a right to remove articles which infringe the plaintiff's copyright, which under then existing copyright law were deemed to be owned by the copyright owner.
As the Anton Piller jurisdiction developed, so plaintiffs were also granted the right to have their solicitors remove not only the plaintiff's own property but property belonging to the defendant which constituted or might constitute evidence. The relevant authorities there are Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited [1976] Ch 55; Yousif v Salama [1980] 1 WLR 1540 and Emmanuel v Emmanuel [1982] 1 WLR 669.
The Anton Piller jurisdiction moved away from its narrow foundation as a means of retrieving for an owner infringing articles and developed into a means by which plaintiffs could also secure property not the subject of the proceedings, including documents, books of account, and so on, which constituted mere evidence in proceedings which the plaintiff feared might be destroyed or hidden if the ordinary processes of discovery in civil litigation were gone through.
The power to make interlocutory orders for the delivery up of property to its owner is now contained in Section 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and rules of court now exist to provide for such applications. The relevant order is Order 29, rule 2(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. It is to be noted that an application for interim delivery up of goods can be made ex parte; that is, Order 29, Rule 2(a)(2).
The purpose of the amendment is to offer for consideration the proposition that Clause 6(1) should be amended, as proposed in the amendment, to bring the present Bill in line with the current practice in the Anton Piller jurisdiction.
I now speak to Amendment No. 26. Clause 6(4) does not empower the applicant or his solicitors to remove property owned by the applicant for the purpose of returning that property to the applicant so that he or she may make any use of it which he or she chooses. Subsection (5)(b) provides merely that an order may direct the respondent,
"to allow any such person, or secure that any such person is allowed, to retain for safe keeping anything described in the order".
I shall give a practical example. Employees surreptitiously remove their employer's files or floppy disks so as to use them in a rival business. The employer's business cannot function without them. If an order is made that those files or disks when recovered by the employer must be kept in the safe keeping of the employer's solicitors, which is the standard form order, then the employer's business remains paralysed. It is not the purpose of an Anton Piller order to paralyse a person's
CWH 30
use of his own property once it has been recovered. Accordingly, what lies behind the amendment is that a new sub-paragraph should be added to subsection (4) which would enable a court, where it thought it appropriate, to permit an applicant to remove into his own custody any of his own property that he might recover so that he might have the use of that property for purposes other than mere safe keeping.
Just for the sake of completeness in making these suggestions to the Committee, I shall say a word about the separate grouping, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, to which I shall speak later properly. I shall also be proposing that certain additional definitions be included in subsection (8) to clarify the steps that may be taken pursuant to an order under this clause. There are some doubts whether the existing wording of subsection (4) is sufficiently wide to require a respondent or an employee or a person in charge of premises to give access to any information stored on a computer system or floppy disk. I shall return to these proposed additional definitions under Clause 6(8) and I shall explain the point fully when I come to move Amendments Nos. 30 to 31. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of this clause is certainly not to limit or reduce the jurisdiction which is currently being exercised under the Anton Piller order but to seek to put it on a secure statutory foundation as recommended some time ago by a working party of the Judges' Council. Therefore, I would wish to consider in detail the sort of consideration that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has raised in relation to the amendment to which he has already spoken, I have already had a good deal of advice from well-informed quarters about this clause, but I would wish to pursue the indication that the noble Lord has given about this matter with my colleagues before Report stage. That is probably better than my attempting to deal with these in detail now.
I have fairly detailed answers to a number of these matters but they are pretty technical, and the intention is absolutely clear. I do not want in any way to limit the powers which the court presently exercises under the Anton Piller jurisdiction. There are other powers to which this order can relate which can also be Anton Piller-type orders; you can combine various types of order together, and therefore the points are quite technical.
I believe that this is the best way of handling this sort of debate. If the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and others have points they wish to make, I would encourage them to do so now and reserve my detailed answer, saying that my purpose is to give effect, as far as possible under the statutory authority from now on, to what the court has hitherto done in exercising its jurisdiction, broadly referred to as the Anton Piller jurisdiction.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I entirely agree with the approach proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. This is a very difficult realm in which there is limited expertise. We have taken the Bar and solicitors as a whole and the expertise is limited, but it is very important that this expertise be tapped in full. If I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord

CWH 31
Chancellor, he said that if we raised points he would answer them. I want to raise a point but I do not want an answer, because it will require a bit of study.
It has always bothered me from the very beginning with the Anton Piller jurisdiction that you can have the position, normally ex parte—and it is the ex parte that is the problem—that somebody may go off to the court and produce very good evidence that his property has been sold or whatever. In that context it is almost certain that if any notice was given to the putative respondent, it will get destroyed or moved elsewhere; so surprise is all. Then the problem comes when somebody gets the order, knocks on the front door and says "I have here an order from the High Court which entitles me to go right through your premises searching for this, that and the other"; the man at the front door may say, "I am not so sure about this. I want to go to the court and dispute this order, which was made ex parte". That is when you come right up against the problem.
I do not know whether I said it in a judgment or whether in some court, but I know that at that time I thought we could live with this on the basis of my suggestion that the respondent stood his ground and said "I am going to the court and I am going now, but I will give you an undertaking—and if you want to you can put somebody in to observe—that no documents will be destroyed and no goods will be removed, but you are not going to look at all these documents and these goods until I have had an opportunity of challenging this order". I thought the only solution to that was to suggest that any court, faced with that situation, might, if it was technically minded, say that there had been a contempt of court in not complying with the order, but it would certainly say "No penalty".
If we are now looking at Anton Piller we ought to find some way out of this difficulty. It may be that, as part of the Anton Piller order, judges will have to evolve a provision that, if somebody wants to dispute the order, apply it, or have it set aside, provided he follows certain procedures—such as allowing the person who has the carriage of the order to satisfy himself that the documents are not being destroyed and so on—he need not comply with the order pending his application to set it aside. That is one way of doing it.
Another way of doing it would be to confine the carriage of the order, not in the statute but in most cases in practice, to solicitors. I do not mean solicitors' managing clerks, I mean qualified, admitted solicitors, they being required to take documents into their custody. They would obviously have to look at them to decide whether they were within the categories but not to reveal those documents or their contents to their clients, or to make any use of that information in subsequent proceedings if the order were set aside on application.
I merely throw out the problems and possible solutions. Whether the solutions ought to be statutory, whether they ought to be in rules, or whether it ought to be left to individual judges to work them out on a case-by-case basis, I do not know, but I would be very troubled by a situation in which an order was granted to somebody who was not legally qualified. Heaven knows I am not pushing legal qualifications, but the point is that those who are legally qualified have a direct responsibility to the court
CWH 32
which others do not have. An order being given to someone who was not legally qualified could produce a conflict between the duty of the citizen to obey an order of the court and the right of the citizen on an ex parte order to apply to the court for relief.
A parallel situation arose in the case of the Industrial Relations Court when we first started on the question of sequestration. It had been confined, I believe, to a very limited perhaps family law field. I was appalled to be told that the applicant for a sequestration order could nominate the sequestrator. I then had visions of various people—and I mention no names—operating in that field, who given a sequestration order might produce the most startling results to say the least. I am afraid that I just baldly announced that the Industrial Relations Court was different, that the court would always nominate its own sequestrator, and that it would not be open to applicants to nominate their own sequestrator. However, that was the same point in a slightly different form. We always nominated Price Waterhouse or people of that sort. I mention that to show that this is not a novel problem, but it is one which I believe is serious and requires looking at. However, I would not dream of asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give me an answer tonight, not least because I have been thinking about it for a long time and I am not sure what the answer is.
Lord Meston: I wish to speak in relation to Amendment No. 21 and support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has said, since this is a form of order which is at the extremity of the court's powers and includes the power to enter ordinary domestic premises. Hitherto, the jurisdiction has been regulated by practice directions and practice directions are quite easily amended. This will now be on a statutory basis, which is less easily amended, but it seems to me that the inclusion of the words proposed in Amendment No. 21 are most important.
In the most recent practice direction, made as recently as 31st October, the specimen order provides, among other things, that the defendant must immediately hand over to the plaintiffs solicitors any of the listed items which are in his possession or under his control, save for any computer or hard disk integral to any computer. I certainly have only limited experience of the jurisdiction but I can certainly recall obtaining for a plaintiff an Anton Piller order in exactly the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. A large number of employees had disappeared overnight with valuable documents belonging to their former employers. It was absolutely vital not just to preserve them but to have them delivered up so that they could be used by the business.
The other matter I mention in passing is that this jurisdiction is not just confined to the commercial sphere. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to the case of Emmanuel, which indeed was, as I recall, the authority for the proposition that this jurisdiction can be used in matrimonial disputes. I have certainly had a client who chose to conceal a vast quantity of money in her deep freeze until it was revealed by those enforcing an Anton Piller and led inevitably to a great many tiresome jokes about frozen assets and hot money.

CWH 33
Again, the point is not entirely humorous because this is a jurisdiction that tends to be exercised at the beginning of litigation and some use may have to be made of the recovered asset before the litigation is finally concluded. The money may have to be reinvested in some way and it is therefore important that it is delivered up. I therefore support Amendment No. 21 in particular.
Dealing with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, he is right, if I may respectfully say so, to emphasise the importance of the supervising solicitor who is now an integral part of the current Anton Piller order. It must be right that recognition should be given to the role of the independent supervising solicitor who ensures that the order is properly and fairly carried out, both at the early stages and in what happens to the material recovered thereafter, and reports to the court.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: On the basis of the assurances that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has given—in particular that it is no part of his intention inadvertently in any way to diminish the existing Anton Piller jurisdiction—and in the hope also that if there are reasonable opportunities here of improvement in modest respects (we should take such legislative opportunities now) I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but subject only to saying this. If the noble and learned Lord is minded to enter into correspondence on this subject—clearly it will be quite complex—we should give sufficient time for the correspondence to be undertaken before Report stage so that we can have a fruitful debate so far as it may prove necessary. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The Court may make an order under this section for the purpose of ascertaining, in the case of any existing or proposed proceedings in the Court, the location of evidence which is or may be relevant.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 22 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 25. Amendments Nos. 22 and 25 would extend the provisions of Clause 6 and bring them into line with orders that are currently being made by the court and have been for the past 21 years.
I shall refer to the origin of Anton Piller orders before turning to the amendments that I advocate. An Anton Piller order derives its name, as your Lordships will know, from a case before the Court of Appeal headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning in December 1975, just 21 years ago. The background to the case was that the defendants possessed vital material which it was feared they might destroy or dispose of in order to defeat the ends of justice. The plaintiffs therefore applied to the High Court without the defendants' prior knowledge for an order which, in effect, was a private search warrant.
The application first came before the Chancery Division of the High Court and the order sought was, I am sorry to say, refused by Mr. Justice Brightman. His decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal and so the Anton Piller form of order was born.
I emphasise that the object of the order is, in the words of the headnote to the report of the Anton Piller case, the preservation of,
"vital material which the defendants might destroy or dispose of so as to defeat the ends of justice",
or, as it is put in the Supreme Court Practice,
"The preservation of documents or articles which may otherwise be destroyed or concealed".
My Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are an extension of Clause 6(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 6(1)(a) gives the court power to make an order for the purpose of securing the preservation of evidence which is or may be relevant in a law suit. The amendment seeks to extend the power of the court so as to include not only the preservation of evidence but also the disclosure of its whereabouts.
The amendment was suggested to me by Mr. Justice Laddie, a High Court Judge with immense experience of this type of order. He was in fact counsel for the plaintiff in the Anton Piller case. His experience extends over no less than 21 years as counsel and as judge. He tells me that an order on the defendant to disclose the location of evidence or property is a very common type of case and has been since the inception of Anton Piller's particular orders. Mr. Justice Laddie has written to me as follows:
"Where infringements of copyright are concerned [such as copies of sound recordings, films or computer software] it is very frequently the case that the owner of the statutory rights has discovered a source of pirate material but he does not know where the stocks of copies are retained nor the location of the master copy which has been used for making the product which has been put on the market by the defendant. The purpose of the court order is to force the defendant to disclose the location of that material. Compliance with such an order produces a number of benefits as follows.

a) If the unlawful stock is in the hands of the defendant who is the subject of the order, the defendant will be obliged to disclose where it is. Frequently this will have the effect of restraining the defendant from hiding it. The result is that it is more likely that the plaintiff will be able to remove the stock from circulation forthwith.

b) If the unlawful stock is in the hands of a supplier to the defendant, the order will allow the plaintiff to trace back up the distribution chain. As the plaintiff goes up the chain the spread of illicit distribution is restricted.

"c) As far as the master copy is concerned, the location of this (together with the person who is using it) will help the plaintiff to stop the infringing activity at source - which is by far the most efficient and cost-effective way of tackling infringement".

However, this is not the only sort of scenario in which such orders are used. For example, it is also known to obtain an order that the defendant disclose where he keeps computerised backups of his trading records. This not only helps the plaintiff discover other rungs on the distribution ladder, both up and down, but better enables him to seek appropriate damages. Furthermore, orders have been made in the past requiring the defendant to disclose where stocks of packaging materials are kept. The seizure of such items also helps to reduce the prospect of the continuation of the infringing business".
It is in these circumstances that I should like to add the words I have mentioned to Clause 6 of the Bill.
If the amendment is not accepted, it would seem that the Court will have to cease making orders, which I will call "location orders", which it is now making, orders which have not been successfully challenged for want of jurisdiction during the past 21 years. It is the intention of Clause 6 to reflect the existing practice of the judges and not to curtail the practice.
I turn to Amendment No. 25. Clause 6(4)(a)provides that an Anton Piller order may direct the respondent to permit a named person to carry out a search for, or an inspection of, anything described in the order. Amendment No. 25 seeks to include not only a search or/and inspection, but also a test of anything described in the order. Mr Justice Laddie says:
"This sort of order is useful in cases in which the plaintiff is in possession of an incriminating or fraudulent document and it is necessary to see where it came from. In the days when typewriters were more common than they are now, an order allowing for the testing of typewriters in a defendant's power or possession might well help to locate the equipment on which such incriminating material was produced. … Testing equipment for 'fingerprints' … however is not limited to typewriters. Even modern laser printers sometimes develop idiosyncratic errors which can be confirmed by testing. To some extent this type of order also overlaps orders directing the defendant to `dump—
I am afraid that word is new to me—
"(i.e. make a copy of) the contents of his computers' memories so as to discover whether or not incriminating data is located there."
Clause 6(4)(a) at present reads:
"to carry out a search for or inspection of anything described in the order".
To bring this in line with the existing practice of the courts it should read,
"To carry out a search for or inspection of or test of anything described in the order."
Again, this amendment is needed if the existing practice of the court is not to be curtailed.
Before I formally move the first of the two amendments, perhaps I may mention a thought which occurred to me after my noble and learned friend, Lord Donaldson, had spoken. If a wise defendant says, "I want you to do nothing on my premises until I have been to the court and sought to set aside your order—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, suggested that the position might be held by putting somebody on the premises to see that nothing was destroyed or removed—what might happen in an appropriate case is that the defendant would telephone his suppliers and instruct them to destroy whatever incriminating material they had. So it is not at all easy to cope with the scenario which my noble and learned friend suggests to your Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
The Lord Chancellor: I would certainly wish to consider these proposals emanating from such a distinguished source. In doing so, I would just like to remark that this is an area obviously fraught with difficulties because as soon as any solution is tentatively suggested, a further difficulty remains. These are certainly difficult issues and I certainly wish to have time to consider them. I hope we will be able to resolve them, at least substantially, before Report stage.
Lord Brightman: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("a party") and insert ("a plaintiff or defendant or any other party").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 23 goes to Clause 6(2) and seeks to clarify the law in this area. Anton Piller orders are invariably made ex parte without notice to the respondent because the applicant fears that if notice were given of his application, property or revenues would be destroyed or hidden by the respondent.
Under the existing court rules for an act of placement for an injunction—I refer to Order 29, Rule 1(i), 1 (ii) and 1(iii)—it appears that a defendant in proceedings cannot make an ex parte application for an injunction. I refer to the Supreme Court Practice at 29/1/8, page 507, third line from the top of the page. It does not seem right in principle to deprive a defendant, particularly one who may be making a counter-claim against the plaintiff, of the right to make an application against the plaintiff either for the preservation or removal of evidence or for the return of property he claims to own and which is the subject matter of his counter-claim.
I entirely appreciate that the existing wording of Clause 6(2) is arguably wide enough to achieve this purpose; but I call attention to Clause 6(7), which states:
"This section is subject to any provision which may be made by rules of court".
Accordingly, even where the existing subsection is wide enough to encompass defendants it must be strongly arguable that it could not do so because of the existing court rules. In any event, in an important matter involving the jurisdiction of the High Court there should be clarity in the language of the provisions of the Bill. That, too, I hope is a matter which the noble and learned Lord will also wish to consider.
I now speak to Amendment No. 24. This applies to Clause 6(3). Again, it does not appear to me that this subsection reflects actual practice in the area of Anton Piller relief. The modern form of Anton Piller order first introduced by Practice Direction (Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders) [1994] 1 WLR 1233 and recently amended by a further practice direction, requires not only a "respondent" to an order to permit entry onto premises, etcetera, but also requires such entry to be permitted by an employee of the "respondent" or by other persons,
"appearing to be in control of the premises and having authority to permit the premises to he entered and the search to proceed".
That is a reference to Standard Form Anton Piller Order paragraph 1(ii). The execution of an Anton Piller order may, of course, be entirely frustrated if the respondent named in the proceedings or in the order is not actually present and cannot be reached when the order comes to be served. Hence the provision in paragraph 1(ii) of the standard form. It is one of the exceptional features of the Anton Piller jurisdiction that a party not identified by name in the order may nonetheless be required to comply with it and the purpose of this amendment is to suggest that this exceptional feature should be reflected in the wording of Clause 6(3). That is what I say in speaking to Amendment No. 24. I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: The only comment I wish to make is largely irrelevant, but it will give comfort to my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. He, apparently, was overruled by the noble and learned Lord,

CWH 37
Lord Denning. Perhaps if we still had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, we would not have problems with this clause. He was overruled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and that gave rise to the Anton Piller order. I can do better than that; the first application ever made for a Mareva injunction was made in the commercial court and I refused it on the grounds there was no jurisdiction to make such an order. It was promptly reversed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. That case was not called the Mareva case. That was followed by the Mareva case, where I again refused on the grounds of no jurisdiction and suggested that the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was per incuriam, and set out a number of questions which needed to be answered on the judgment if he was to insist on there being such jurisdiction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, promptly reversed me again and never answered the questions.
The Lord Chancellor: We have endeavoured to make the position plain in Clause 6(2). I do not think the conditions specified in the rules of court would, once this clause comes into effect, be allowed to contradict that. My recollection so far as the other matter is concerned is the same as that of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington. What I said earlier applies to all of this and I want to consider it quite carefully. If one takes the full order this would be a very large section before it were finished. I am anxious to try and keep the statute book reasonably succinct and that is the principle that will underlie consideration of these matters.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Of course it is desirable to keep the statute book economic; it is also necessary when dealing with an existing jurisdiction to ensure that it gets it right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 24 to 26 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("( )An order under this section—

(a) is to have effect subject to such conditions as are specified in the order, and

(b) may include, in addition to any relief specified in this section, any other order or direction which the court has jurisdiction to make relating to the preservation or delivery up of evidence or property or any other subject matter of the proceedings or any question arising on which may arise in the proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: Nowhere in the present clause is any provision made for other interlocutory orders or directions to be included with the basic Anton Piller search, inspection and removal provisions. In the vast majority of cases where Anton Piller orders are sought the applicant will need additional relief against the respondent; for example, an injunction restraining the respondent from destroying or defacing or hiding or parting with his possession of any materials or articles which are subject to the Anton Piller order. If such a provision does not exist, a respondent can, before inviting the applicant's representatives on to his premises to
CWH 38
conduct their search, inspection or removal, make off with or destroy or hide these materials or articles. In an unreported case where exactly that happened a judge held that the respondent was not in breach of the Anton Piller order because he had in fact permitted the search to go ahead.
There are inevitably other forms of injunctive relief which, depending on the nature of the course of action which the applicant may have against the respondent, will need to be granted in conjunction with the Anton Piller relief itself—injunctions restraining infringements of copyright or other intellectual property rights; injunctions to restrain breaches of employment contracts, etc. It is of crucial importance that in providing a statutory basis for the Anton Piller order Parliament does not limit or erode the existing powers of the court to grant interlocutory relief to applicants.
The object of this amendment is to propose the division of subsection (6) into two sub-paragraphs, the first containing the existing provision, the second empowering the court to grant other forms of relief in conjunction with the Anton Piller order. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as this goes, I entirely agree with the result that is sought to be obtained, but my belief is that we have not damaged that. This clause gives power to the court; in other words, it confers jurisdiction to make this order; but it does not exclude any other jurisdiction of the court to make any other order. If the court has jurisdiction to make two orders, there is no reason why we should not have a composite order with the two parts in it. So I certainly had not intended by these divisions to damage the possibility which I entirely agree exists and is frequently used to combine the Anton Piller order with other interlocutory relief, including that of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has mentioned. So our intentions I believe are absolutely the same. The only question is whether the drafting has achieved that and at the moment I have no reason to doubt that.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. People know what an injunction is: it has a definite meaning. But an Anton Piller order is purely descriptive of classes of order. The fact that we may here have outlined the requirements of an Anton Piller order could not, I should have thought, prevent a court from making any other order, possession or anything else, provided it has independent jurisdiction for that particular part of the order.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I entirely accept that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, may be right. I would certainly like to reconsider the matter, but I hope that, in the spirit which has informed the reception by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack of all these amendments, he will give thought to this one too. I note the noble and learned Lord is assenting on that basis, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

CWH 39
("( ) An application for an order under this section shall accord with any provision which may be made by rules of court.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to call attention to Clause 6 subsection (7) and to gain some understanding of what the current subsection (7) seeks to achieve. Subsection (7) reads:
"This section is subject to any provision which may be made by rules of court".
At first Lush it would appear to render primary legislation subject to subordinate legislation, which does not strike one as right. Under the existing subsection (7), a rule of court could in theory be made which abrogated the Anton Piller jurisdiction altogether. Plainly, what must be intended is that the court should be free to make rules dealing with the form of, and procedures for, obtaining Anton Piller orders. This amendment is put forward in the spirit of inviting the noble and learned Lord to consider whether the proposed amendment reflects that intention more clearly than the existing subsection. On that basis, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of the present subsection (7) is to leave the detailed rules of procedure to be settled by rules of court. The clause provides the jurisdiction and one has to bear that in mind when it says:
"which may be made by rules of court".
The rules of court are made under the powers described earlier, and these are to make rules of procedure not to abolish rights or anything of that kind. It is simply emphasising the fact that we are trying to be simple in preparing the jurisdiction. The procedure under which that jurisdiction is to be exercised will be found in the relevant rules of court. But I am happy to consider further any amplification of that which may be required.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The issue is whether the undoubted intent could be better expressed. On the basis that the noble and learned Lord will consider the matter, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No 29:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall abrogate, modify or limit any rule of law or statutory provision constituting or excluding any privilege against self-incrimination.").
The noble Lord said: I would submit that it is necessary to introduce into subsection (8) a new subsection, which would presumably be a new subsection (8), which makes it clear that Parliament does not intend in this clause to make any changes to the existing law relating to the privilege against self-incrimination. Existing subsection (8) would then have to be renumbered subsection (9).
The existing Clause 6, subsection (5)(a) provides that the order may also direct the respondent:
"(a) to provide any person named in the order … with any information described in the order."
Your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity, has ruled that Anton Piller orders requiring the disclosure of documents or the immediate answer to questions can be contrary to the well-established principle against self-incrimination. That is the Rank Film decision [1982]
CWH 40
AC 180. Therefore, an ex parte Anton Piller order for the seizure of documents ought not to be made if, on the facts alleged against the defendants in the civil proceedings, a prosecution for conspiracy to defraud might be brought against the defendant and the documents might tend to incriminate the defendant on a conspiracy charge: Tate Access Floors (Incorporated) case [1990] 3 ALL ER 303.
Various means exist for safeguarding a respondent to an Anton Piller order against the risk of self-incrimination. These are referred to in the decisions of this House in its judicial capacity at [1993] 1 AC 45, AT&T Istel Limited v Tully. These safeguards, however, are neither so comprehensive nor so clear that in every case the risk of self-incrimination can be eliminated altogether.
Your Lordships should also note that the privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings has been much criticised and is already the subject of a number of statutory exemptions—for example, Section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. However, the fact that Parliament has not yet seen fit to abrogate that privilege entirely in any legislation thus far must mean that it does not intend to achieve that purpose as a side wind to creating a statutory basis for the Anton Piller jurisdiction. I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will inform your Lordships that there is no such intention, but I would respectfully submit—and this is the purpose of the amendment—that this very important matter should be made clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: This is an important amendment. It is noticeable that the most recent practice direction—that of 31st October 1996—adds to the specimen form of order a notice to the defendant that he may be entitled to refuse to permit disclosure of any documents which may incriminate him, or to answer any questions if to do so may incriminate him. It goes on to say that it may be prudent to take advice, because if he does so refuse his refusal may be taken into account by the court at a later stage. That is included in a body of paragraphs of notices to the defendant, but it seems to me that this is one of the most important notices and it is only recently that it has become standard form in the Anton Piller order. I shall therefore certainly support the amendment or something like it.
The Lord Chancellor: I simply confirm that it is not my intention to alter the present law and so I am happy to consider these matters further.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I accept entirely that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has no such intention; indeed, I said that in my own observations. Again, it is a matter of getting the statute book clear, and beyond that a matter of great importance to individuals. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3. line 43, after second ("Court") insert—

CWH 41
("inspection" includes the inspection of data stored in computer readable form and references to permitting inspection include permitting access to any such data,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. I shall do so briefly and that will bring to an end my contributions on the Anton Piller jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 30 goes to Clause 6(8). If it were thought necessary to accept the preceding amendment, the existing Clause 8 would have to be renumbered Clause 9. As I earlier indicated, the proposal is that two further definitions should be added within this subsection.
The first is a definition of the word "inspection". What is proposed is to clarify the position as regards information stored in computer systems or otherwise in computer readable form and to ensure that a respondent or other person can be required to give access to any such information.
The second definition of "record" is again aimed at clarifying the rights of an applicant to call for and remove print-outs or to make copies of floppy disks. That is the object of the amendments. I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to agree that he will give them his consideration on the same basis as he has indicated in elation to the previous amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I confirm that I shall do that. One of my concerns in this connection is that over time the meaning of "inspection" and "record" has grown. I would not wish to cast doubt on the impact of such words in earlier legislation, where modern developments are taken account of as they happen without the need for express reference. But that is one of my concerns in considering what should happen in respect of these amendments. But I shall certainly consider carefully what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Civil Procedure Rules]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, leave out lines 37 to 42 and insert—
("( ) for subsections (5) and (6) there is substituted—
"(5) Special rules may apply—

(a) any rules made under this section, or

CWH 42

(b) Civil Procedure Rules,

to proceedings to which the special rules apply.
(5A) Rules made under this section may apply—

(a) any special rules, or

(b) Civil Procedure Rules,

to proceedings to which rules made under this section apply.
(6) Where rules may be applied under subsection (5) or (5A), they may be applied—

(a) to any extent,

(b) with or without modification, and

(c) as amended from time to time.", and").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 33 I speak also to Amendment No. 34. These are technical amendments. Section 84 of the Supreme Court Act is relevant both to rule-making powers for civil and criminal cases in the Supreme Court, and to other special rules applying to Supreme Court proceedings—that is, family proceeding rules made by other committees under other enactments. These amendments contain the powers of the different rule authorities to apply rules made by other rule committees if so desired. Their effect is to provide special rules, rules made by any committee or rule-making body other than the civil procedure rule committee and the Crown Court rule committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 43, leave out from ("(9)") to end of line and insert ("for "Supreme Court Rule Committee" there is substituted "Civil Procedure Rule Committee" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("subsection (1) is") and insert ("subsections (1) and (2) are").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the further rule-making powers, which we can dispense with. Section 87(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 is aimed at how proceedings are undertaken against the estate of a person. That will be filed as an exercise in county court rules and rules of the Supreme Court. It will be sufficient for the future to rely on paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 which makes plain that the scope of rule-making powers extends to all matters which were governed by the former rules of the Supreme Court and county court rules. Therefore, in the interests of economy in the statute book I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-three minutes before seven o'clock.

  Iran: Human Rights
  Iran: Human Rights
  NATO Enlargement and the Soviet Union
  NATO Enlargement and the Soviet Union
  UN Dues: Arrears
  UN Dues: Arrears
  Heathrow: Facilities for Disabled Passengers
  Heathrow: Facilities for Disabled Passengers
  Bus Services: Quality Indicators
  Bus Services: Quality Indicators
  London Bus Services: Subsidy
  London Bus Services: Subsidy
  House of Lords: Painting
  House of Lords: Painting
  Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
  Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
  Social Security Fraud: Prevention Costs
  Social Security Fraud: Prevention Costs
  Horserace Totalisator Board: Bets on Foreign Lotteries
  Horserace Totalisator Board: Bets on Foreign Lotteries
  Malathion
  Malathion