Sitting of 11 February 1997

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 February.

  LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Defence Contracts
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors he takes into account when awarding major defence contracts. [13714]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My Department takes account of all relevant factors before awarding contracts, including financial, operational and industrial factors. Our aim is to secure best value for money in the long term.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the award of the Royal Air Force TriStar maintenance contract, which went to a firm in the United Arab Emirates, result from the defence co-operation accord that the Secretary of State signed with the United Arab Emirates last year?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It did not.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Although I am bitterly disappointed that the main contract went abroad, does my hon. Friend agree that it does no good to the work force of an excellent company such as Marshall, or anybody else, to spread doom and gloom? Is there, even at this stage, a hope that there may still be some chance of Marshall playing a part in the main contract?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached the matter, which is in contrast to the approach of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Marshall is a very good
    124
    company and I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that it has been named as a subcontractor to GAMCO in the TriStar maintenance contract.
    Mr. Hutton: Does the Minister consider it an important part of the Government's procurement policy to ensure the retention of an industrial capability to design and construct nuclear-powered submarines in this country? If he does, will he explain how he thinks their policy is being helped or hindered by the three-year delay in placing an order for the replacement of Trafalgar class submarines?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It is of course necessary to negotiate the best possible price for the taxpayer for the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines, but I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, if it were not for a Conservative Government, we would not have any Trident submarines at all—and we certainly would not have the fourth Trident submarine that we have already ordered.
    Sir John Cope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain fully committed to the Eurofighter and its weapons systems? We know that Labour's defence review would lead to cuts—probably—in both the Eurofighter and its weapons systems, with disastrous consequences for British industry and jobs.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend is right. It is breathtaking that the Labour party appears to promise both stability and change in the same breath. It tries to be all things to all men. Unless it is able to say that it will exempt the Eurofighter from its pretended strategic review, we cannot be sure that the Eurofighter would not go the same way as the TSR2.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the United States about the cost, relevance and morality of nuclear weapons. [13715]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Nuclear weapons have successfully deterred war in Europe for more than 50 years. That is their financial and moral justification.
    Mr. Mullin: Did the Secretary of State see the recent remarks by General Lee Butler, the former chief of US Strategic Command, who said that nuclear weapons were inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient and morally indefensible? Did the Secretary of State also see the remarks of Sir Michael Atiyah, the former President of the Royal Society, who, in his farewell address 14 months ago, said that nuclear weapons were fundamentally misguided, a total waste of resources and a significant factor in our relative economic decline?
    Does the Secretary of State think that history will show that those who were so keen on nuclear weapons will turn out to be the extremists and those of us who were against them may turn out to be the moderates?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not agree with the two interesting quotations that the hon. Gentleman just made, but if his

    125
    point is that many people agree with him, he is, of course, right; he speaks for the majority of the Labour party. At one time, 19 members of the present Labour Front Bench agreed with him. At one time, the Leader of the Opposition was a member of national CND. At one time, the Labour party spokesman on defence was a member of parliamentary CND. I perfectly understand that the hon. Gentleman feels aggrieved that he used to have all these people agreeing with him; whereas he has stuck to his opinions, these wimps have changed their minds.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is the true voice of the Labour party—a Labour party that has consistently called for defence cut after defence cut?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is not only the true voice of the Labour party, but the courageous voice of the Labour party. He has tried to say today that there are many who agree with him. He need have no fear. After the next election, I am confident that the Labour party will revert to type, win or lose.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Secretary of State has the opportunity to meet the new United States Secretary of State of Defence, Mr. Cohen, will he discuss with him the significance of the remarks recently attributed to the Russian Defence Minister: that the Russian nuclear arsenal has become unmanageable and that there appears to be a loss of effective command and control? In those circumstances, is there not a need for a joint initiative on the part of the United Kingdom and the United States to endeavour to prevent rogue nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists?
    Mr. Portillo: That is a matter of great concern and interest to the international community. I am pleased to say that there has been the most intimate co-operation between the United Kingdom, the United States, the Russian Federation and others. I am frequently in touch with my Russian opposite number. Indeed, I have been in touch with him very recently. He has not raised with me any immediate concerns, but he knows that the international community is willing to do what it can to ensure that there is not proliferation in the very dangerous manner that the hon. and learned Gentleman just mentioned.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot disinvent nuclear weapons, and that the real danger with the proliferation of surface-to-surface missiles is the fact that they can fall into the hands of very unstable regimes that are able to target most of Europe?
    Mr. Portillo: There are all sorts of new dangers in the new world that we now face. Nuclear deterrents will remain cost-effective and morally justified because they can avert nuclear or other war disaster. That is why I am so confident about the opinion that we have always held, and why, because it is common sense, we understand why 19 members of the Labour Front Bench have had to change what they say to come into line with common sense. Whether they have changed their minds is a matter that only they and God can know.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister tell the House what are the total lifetime operational refit and
    126
    decommissioning costs of Trident, on top of the £12 billion that taxpayers have already provided for its construction?
    Mr. Portillo: When the hon. Gentleman tackles the cost of nuclear weapons, he is on the very weakest part of the argument. I believe that the total cost of the nuclear programme will be about 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget over the life of the nuclear deterrent. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my view that the opinions expressed in the main question are widespread in the Labour party, even today. I congratulate him, at least, on sticking to his convictions and opinions. Where are the other brave men and women who will rise and say that they have not changed their minds either?

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made on the development of Eurofighter. [13716]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We announced last September that we were ready to proceed to the production, production investment and support phases of the programme on a four-nation basis, and we very much hope that the other nations will soon be able to commit to those phases of the project.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European fighter aircraft is important to my constituency and to neighbouring constituencies, where thousands of workers are committed to the project, and that it will ensure that our young pilots in the Royal Air Force have the best aircraft possible into the next century?
    Does my hon. Friend further agree that those who work on the project will have been surprised that, during last Thursday's debate on the RAF, when the Opposition had several opportunities to say that the project would not be part of any review that they would undertake if they formed the next Government, they did not do so? People remember the cancellation of the TSR2 project, which cost hundreds of jobs in the Preston area. Is this not a case of new Labour, but same old danger?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is completely right. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) let the cat out of the bag in October when he said that a Labour defence review would have "painful consequences". We cannot assess what those consequences would be unless the Labour party is prepared to say that a project such as Eurofighter, which is vital to our defence and to our industrial capability, would be exempted from the review. My hon. Friend is right to mention the TSR2 debacle. Lancashire still remembers that Harold Wilson promised that the TSR2 jobs would be safe, and that, within a few months, they were axed.
    Mr. Spellar: Well, Madam Speaker, they are certainly at it again, are they not? In the past two Question Times and, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, in the debate on the Royal Air Force, Conservative Members raised the question of Eurofighter and got absolutely clear answers. We expressed our support for the project, but still they play silly political games. Do they not understand the consequences of those antics,

    127
    when Germany has not yet signed the production contract? Raising such uncertainty can only give ammunition to those in Germany who do not want to order the Eurofighter. When will they start to back the aircraft, which the RAF wants, British industry and British workers?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I suspect, Madam Speaker, that I am not allowed to accuse the hon. Gentleman of breathtaking hypocrisy, so I shall not do it. I shall merely say that this Conservative Government are committed to the Eurofighter. The hon. Gentleman has refused time and again—he has done it again today—to say that it would not form part of a Labour defence review.
    Mr. Dover: When does my hon. Friend think that the Eurofighter will be ready for service?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We expect to take possession of our first Eurofighter in 2001, as does Germany. Spain and Italy expect to take possession of their first Eurofighters the following year.

    Royal Navy (Recruitment)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future recruitment to the Royal Navy. [13718]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The recruitment target for the Royal Navy in 1996–97 is some 4,500 people. We expect to achieve 90 per cent. of that target.
    Mr. Miller: The Minister will acknowledge my interest in the issue of gapping in the fleet. How important is the role of the Royal Navy Sea Cadets in meeting his targets in the long term? How does he expect training ship Forward in my constituency to obtain the resources that it needs for a new building when his colleagues in the Tory-controlled county council and the relevant Departments are failing to provide them in the youth budget? If he is serious about the role of the Sea Cadets, is it not time that he had serious discussions with his colleagues to get the equation right?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking about sea cadets in his constituency. I do not know the exact details, but I would be happy to look into the matter if he would do me the courtesy of writing to me about it. Some sea cadets inevitably go on to the Royal Navy. They are very welcome; we need all the sea cadets we can get. The Opposition fundamentally misunderstand the true nature of the problem. There is a huge demographic hole in Britain. There are one third fewer 17 and 18-year-olds than there were even only 15 years ago. The number of people aged 16 to 24 fell by a sixth in the same period. More young people than ever go into further and higher education. That has greatly reduced our recruiting pool. I am happy to confirm that the more sea cadets go into the Navy the better, but we do not regard the cadets as a major source of recruits, rather as a valuable part of the source.
    Mr. Robathan: Has my hon. Friend seen the comments to a Senate committee of General Reimer, the
    128
    US Army chief of staff, because they relate to the use of women in Royal Navy ships? Will he consider them and, in the light of some high-profile tribunal and court cases involving the Royal Navy, study again the policy that has led to women serving on Royal Navy ships and the disruption that it has regrettably caused?
    Mr. Soames: I shall certainly study the remarks to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but it is unlikely that they would deflect us from existing policy. I do not agree with the point that he is getting at. Women in the Royal Navy make an invaluable contribution. I regret it when matters go badly wrong, as they clearly did, but we would not be without them; they are marvellous people.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the Navy's recruitment target is down by almost 12 per cent? Having made thousands of service men and women redundant, he has had to open recruitment offices that he previously closed. Does he not understand that the country will judge the so-called manpower policy as mismanaged, mishandled and mistaken, especially when he has the cheek to accuse Labour of wanting to make defence cuts after his Government have reduced our Navy to its smallest size since Trafalgar?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. Royal Navy recruiting targets have not fallen but doubled. We hope this year to recruit at least 90 per cent. of the target. The Opposition have constantly used redundancies to attack the Government. They are wrong. The redundancies that followed "Options for Change" and the defence cost studies, however regrettable, were inevitable, because the services are a young man's and young woman's business. The redundancies were essentially among older service men and women. The Army alone needs 15,000 young recruits a year. We have a great deal to do and are working hard at it. The hon. Gentleman's thoroughly irresponsible attack on service recruiting does nothing but damage to the image of the armed forces in the eyes of the public.

    Defence Spending
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the effect on maintenance of existing military equipment of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [13719]
    Mr. Portillo: A reduction in UK defence expenditure to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of around £5,000 million a year. That would have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Would not such an action—which has been endorsed by Labour conference after Labour conference—reduce employment in places such as Sheffield and the defence capability of this country? The bleatings from Opposition Members show that that is Labour's intended defence policy, which must be deplored.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been treated this afternoon to a display by old Labour, and we have seen the old danger lurking within the Labour party. [Interruption.] One Labour Member after another has risen to make his case, and some of those who are now jeering agree with those hon. Members. We know that Labour wishes to cut our defences and that many Labour Members would like to reduce our armed forces to the armed wing of Oxfam. We must not let those policies into this country. Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
    Dr. Reid: I do not know about old Labour, but it is nice to hear the old pacifist—the old conscientious objector. He is the first in history to become Defence Secretary while forgetting his past. He stands there posing as the Braveheart of the defence budget, but the truth is that he has cut the budget by 31 per cent. in real terms—the RAF by 31 per cent. and the Navy by 38 per cent. The louder he roars, the more he proves his own inadequacy, and his incapacity to defend this country's defence budget.
    Mr. Portillo: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in the truth, but let me tell him once and for all that I have never been a pacifist or a conscientious objector. He entirely misses the point. European countries have in general reduced their defence spending, but Britain remains towards the top of the European average. His party wants to reduce our defence spending to the European average. In other words, whatever reductions may have been made, his party wants to cut defence spending further. He does not have to look far to see those—they are now looking away—who want to cut defence spending to the European average. The difference between where we are now and the European average is £5,000 million; he cannot wriggle off that figure.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is not my right hon. Friend absolutely right to say that our defence spending in the past 17 years has been creditable compared with that of many of our European counterparts? Should there not be an increase in defence spending in other European countries to help provide a stable Europe in the future?
    Mr. Portillo: Any talk about a greater European security and defence identity must be based on European capabilities. Levels of defence spending across Europe today are appreciably lower than they were, and that is why I have no aspiration to descend to the European average. That is why we must resist any party—or any party that is full of members—dedicated to reducing spending to the European average. That party is the Labour party, and that is why we cannot trust it.

    Belize
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure his Department forecasts will be spent on assistance to the Government of Belize in the current year; and what was the figure in 1992–93. [13720]
    Mr. Soames: Since the withdrawal of the garrison in 1994, we have continued to provide Belize with a wide range of military assistance, including training courses in the UK and the provision of loan service personnel. Details are confidential between Governments.
    Mr. Gunnell: The withdrawal of troops has had a massive effect on the economy of Belize. Is the Minister satisfied that that has not made the country more vulnerable to incursions from Guatemala? I welcome the fact that training takes place—particularly of Territorials—in Belize, but will he ensure that the troops do not use the local fauna, many of which are endangered, for target practice?
    Mr. Soames: The services never abuse local fauna; we are against abusing local fauna—[Laughter.] Oh yes, we are—almost all local fauna anyway, and some flora. I am happy to confirm that Belize is an extraordinarily important training area for us. At this moment, 280 members of three London-based Territorial Army units, 10 Para, 4 Royal Greenjackets and the Honourable Artillery Company are in Belize to carry out jungle training, and 2 Para are currently undertaking parachute training there.
    The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that relations with Guatemala are much improved, and I take his point that the withdrawal of the garrison would have had, in some way, a momentarily unhappy effect on the economy. However, that has certainly been put right, and we enjoy the most excellent relations with Belize. The Prime Minister of Belize, Mr. Manuel Esquivel, came to London last November, and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Said Musa, came in September. The Overseas Development Administration continues to run a substantial aid programme in Belize of around £4 million a year.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having served for a short time in Her Majesty's services, may I state my belief—with which I hope my hon. Friend agrees—that it is vital that we maintain defence spending on assisting such countries as Belize? Is not that one of the reasons why we spend towards the top of the average of European countries on defence—our interests lie in all four corners of the world and not only within Europe?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain retains its supremely effective, efficient and well-equipped armed forces for precisely the reason he gave. Belize is one of the few remaining areas of the world where we are able to undertake jungle training, and it is extremely important for that reason. I am glad to confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends and everyone connected with defence are determined to maintain the British pre-eminence in skill at arms, which is admired throughout the world. Our people, as my hon. Friend knows, are the benchmark by which all other armed forces are judged.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not true not only that Belize offers cheap training facilities, but that it has always welcomed the involvement of British forces and the contribution of several aircraft on station to protect against drug runners going to Belize and those countries that are likely to be the unfortunate recipients of drugs?

    131
    We all welcome the statement that Belize will continue to have our support, but will that be constant and of sufficient strength to support the country in the way that is needed?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is right. Indeed, the West Indies guard ship visits Belize at least once a year, almost always to participate in anti-drugs operations with Belize forces. Similarly, the Army Air Corps flight also liaises and works with the Government of Belize. It would be almost impossible for us to have a better or closer relationship with the people of Belize, and they attach the greatest importance to the presence of our troops there on training.

    Royal Air Force (Equipment Budget)
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the RAF's equipment budget for the next four years. [13723]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We plan to increase spending on major equipment procurement for all three services by more than 15 per cent. in real terms over the next four years. The RAF will be a major beneficiary, as demonstrated by recent orders for Nimrod 2000 maritime patrol aircraft, Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Brimstone anti-armour weapons.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important single requirement for a conventional war fighting capability is a modern air force, and that the bulk of the welcome forward programme for the RAF is based around Eurofighter and weapons to be carried by Eurofighter? Does he also agree that, should any Government be sufficiently irresponsible as to conduct a defence review driven by peacetime foreign policy requirements, the effect could only be an undermining of that modern war fighting capability that is so important in a dangerous world and a replacement that would look very much like the khaki branch of Oxfam?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. We have already had exchanges today about Eurofighter and the fact that the Opposition refuse to exempt Eurofighter from their strategic review, but we have not yet had exchanges about whether Nimrod 2000 replacement maritime patrol aircraft would be exempted from that review. Would Labour exempt the CASOM—the conventionally armed stand-off missile? Would it exempt the anti-armour weapon? We do not know—perhaps Labour Members will tell us, because without such an assurance we know that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister still propose to go for the 40 to 50 future large aircraft? What is the status of that project in his Department? Would it not be best to keep wing technology in my constituency in Wales instead of letting it slide to Hamburg?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is arguing very strongly for a further Conservative Government; I thank him for that.
    132
    The Government's position on the future large aircraft was set out in a written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 16 December 1994 at column 823. It remains the case that we need to be satisfied that a number of conditions have been met before we agree to rejoin the FLA programme. That work has not yet been completed. We shall make an announcement as soon as a decision is taken.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of irresponsibility for any party to say that it will conduct a strategic defence and security review without telling the electorate before the general election exactly what the criteria of that review would be? Does he further agree that, without that information, all those orders that he has mentioned for the Royal Air Force are in jeopardy, threatening tens of thousands of jobs in Lancashire and dealing a death blow to the defence industry?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I do agree, because a defence review is the policy that dare not speak its name. That policy is the mask for cuts demanded by Labour Back Benchers. That policy is the greatest skulk of the century; Labour Members are trying desperately to pretend that they do not want to cut defence expenditure. They are trying to be all things to all men, and the electorate will see through them.

    Surplus Defence Equipment Sales
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to increase receipts from the sale of surplus defence equipment. [13724]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Disposal Sales Agency continues to involve private sector companies under contract to the agency. The agency is to broaden its customer base to include disposal sales services on behalf of other Government Departments.
    Mr. Flynn: Why did the Government spend £13 million on HMS Battleaxe and sell it off cheaply within 12 months? Why did they spend £25 million on HMS Andromeda and sell it within a very short time to India for £65,000? Why did they spend £155 million on HMS Renown, which has never been operational since and is about to be scrapped? Is this not financial incompetence on an olympic scale?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No, it is not. We have the youngest Navy in living memory, and the sheer fighting power of our Navy is a tribute to the investment that the Government have made in the Navy in buying new ships and in ordering such things as the landing platform dock replacement craft, which we ordered last year, and ships like HMS Ocean, which will produce an incredibly powerful attacking force. We shall be able to maintain the amphibious capability because we shall be re-elected at the next general election.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain hypocrisy about those who demand smaller profits or no profits from the sales of defence equipment but more expenditure on social services, including those relating to unemployment and the like?

    133
    Does that not need to be properly thought through, especially by the Labour party, which seems to have no values at all?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It is difficult to say whether the Labour party has no values at all because its members present different sets of values according to whom they are talking to. They try to be all things to all men. They try to pretend that they believe in the defence of the country, when we know that they would undermine not only our armed forces, but our defence industry. Our defence industry is stronger than it has ever been. Last year, we had the best ever export results. That performance would be undermined by the Labour party: it would undermine defence exports just as it would undermine the defence industry.

    Royal Air Force (Germany)
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Royal Air Force squadrons currently stationed at Laarbruch and Bruggen are to be based in the United Kingdom upon their withdrawal from Germany. [13725]
    Mr. Soames: Of the squadrons that are currently located at RAF Laarbruch, No. 18 Squadron will move to RAF Odiham, and we plan that Nos. 3 and 4 Squadrons should redeploy to RAF Cottesmore. The tri-national Tornado training establishment, currently at RAF Cottesmore, will reform on 1 April 1999 at RAF Lossiemouth as the national Tornado operational conversion unit. No final decisions have yet been taken about the redeployment of the Tornado squadrons from RAF Brüggen.
    Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend's statement is welcome. Is it not a crazy situation that the squadrons in RAF Germany face restrictions on low flying and a shortage of ranges and have to expand much time and cost in transiting to the UK and elsewhere to train? Is it not more expensive to employ local civilians in Germany than to have civilian support in the UK? The earlier the squadrons can follow headquarters back to Britain, the more jobs there will be in this country.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly says that it is a prudent move, for all the reasons that he mentioned, and it is in line with the Government's continued search for increased efficiency and cost reduction in support and training. There is no doubt that, as the squadrons are presently configured in Germany, they are unable to deliver the value for money that we wish to see. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Tornado squadrons' base, and we shall take the decision as soon as possible. The changes in no way represent a diminution of the United Kingdom commitment to NATO, and the aeorplanes will remain tasked to NATO central forces.
    Mr. Tony Banks: We do not need any lectures in patriotism from Ministers. When I was clutching a rifle in the Air Training Corps, the Secretary of State was clutching a handful of white feathers. If Germany feels that it can spend a lower proportion of its national wealth on defence, why cannot this country?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman's reference to my right hon. Friend is outrageous. If I may say so, it has
    134
    been reported to me that the hon. Gentleman was "a shower" as a cadet and that his personal turn-out and drill were a source of grave concern to the wider youth community.
    The UK spends what it does on defence because we have the best armed forces in the world and we have a major role to play beyond these shores. We do not compare ourselves with our German friends: the British forces are different, and the Tory Government will continue to give them all the support that they need.

    RAF Halton
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of RAF Halton. [13726]
    Mr. Soames: RAF Halton will continue to be the RAF centre for administrative and support trade training and to provide basic recruit and general service training for the majority of airmen.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those involved in the professional transition of the functions of RAF Halton in recent years? Will he bear it in mind that the previous uncertainty about the future of the base has led to a backlog in necessary repairs and refurbishment for single quarters at Halton? Will he review his budget to see how those problems may be tackled as soon as possible?
    Mr. Soames: I know that the commanding officer of RAF Halton is grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is another example of the wider youth community.
    I have visited RAF Halton and seen the high standard of training that it provides. It is true that the standard of single accommodation is not as good as we would like to see it. The RAF takes its responsibilities for the welfare of its personnel seriously and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do what we can to smarten the single quarters up.

    RAF Burtonwood
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the private storage and distribution activities at RAF Burtonwood will cease. [13727]
    Mr. Soames: The disposal of the site at Burtonwood is now in progress and awaits the resolution of the planning situation.
    Mr. Hall: That does not answer my question about storage and distribution at RAF Burtonwood. Given the Minister's refusal to bring that activity to an end, may I remind him that the north-west traffic commissioner has stated on two occasions that RAF Burtonwood is totally unsuitable for storage and distribution purposes. As the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), promised in the House two years ago that there would be no intensification of such use of RAF Burtonwood, can the Minister tell the House why the Ministry of Defence has acquiesced in a further

    135
    application for a vehicle distribution licence for PDS International Ltd., as was reported in the press this weekend?
    Mr. Soames: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has a perfect grasp of the situation. RAF Burtonwood is let for warehousing and distribution. Any request for a tenant to use it as an operating centre would require my Department's approval. No requests have been approved, and would not be agreed without prior consultation with the traffic commissioners, in line with guidance given in the Department of Transport publication entitled "Goods vehicle operating licences: a guide to operators".

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February. [13743]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister seen a copy of the letter of the Secretary of State for Defence to me, in which he admits that bacteriological warfare experiments took place on the civilian populations of London and the south coast between 1964 and 1977? Will he agree to establish an independent inquiry to see whether there was any harmful effect from those tests, as some doctors currently believe, and to report on why the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Healey, was not informed that the tests were taking place?
    The Prime Minister: The direct answer is that I have not seen the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend. I understand that the events to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place in 1966, so either the documents would have been released under the 30-year rule, or they would not be available under the general rule that papers are not available to a successor Government.
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February. [13744]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of defence-related jobs in my Ayr constituency? Is he aware that the Nimrod 2000 programme will provide many jobs, as does the small boat maintenance and construction work at Ailsa Perth and Troon? How would those jobs stand up if we reduced our defence expenditure to the European average?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I see no need for a further defence review, as promised by Labour. After "Front Line First", the only possible reason for a defence review would be further reductions in defence
    136
    expenditure. I can see no other reason. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has rather honestly said that a Labour review would have "painful consequences". Where those painful consequences would fall—whether on Nimrod, Eurofighter, Merlin or Phoenix—and where the job losses would be, I cannot say, but I noticed that, in the article by the leader of the Labour party in The Daily Telegraph, there was not a single assurance about any of those contracts.
    Mr. Blair: Now that the Prime Minister has disowned the Health Secretary as his constitutional spokesman, can he tell us why he appointed him as such in the first place? Rather than rampaging through the responsibilities of other Cabinet Ministers, would it not be better if the Health Secretary addressed himself to the huge and manifest crisis in the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about the role of Health Secretaries and devolution, will he tell the House whether he supports the view of the shadow Health Secretary, who said:
    "Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health administering health in England"?
    Is that the Leader of the Opposition's view? If so, will he make it clear to the people of Scotland, so that they may understand what his devolution proposals mean?
    Mr. Blair: I have made it clear to the Prime Minister on many occasions that, if he wants to give one of his Question Times to me, I shall be delighted to accept it.
    If he cannot answer that question about the health service, perhaps he will answer another one. Is it correct that this afternoon the Health Secretary will back down on the proposal to hire out general practitioners to supermarkets and drug companies? If he does so, the move will be warmly welcomed by people who do not want to see their GPs go the way of dentists, with higher and rising charges.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman waits, he will find out what my right hon. Friend will say about primary health care. It is about a better way of delivering national health services under national health service rules in order to best meet the needs and the preferences of national health service patients. That is what has activated us to make all health reforms and what continues to activate us, as my right hon. Friend will make clear this afternoon.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is in any doubt about the state of the national health service, let him cast his eye over the "Winter Crisis Update" issued by the British Medical Association last week. It details cancelled operations, rising waiting lists and bed and nurse shortages the length and breadth of the country. Is it not true that the Health Secretary and other Ministers are more interested in fighting the next Tory leadership election than in doing their jobs properly for the country? The tragedy for the country is that the Prime Minister stands by and lets them.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has carefully manoeuvred to his prepared soundbite, but I shall answer the substance of his question. Yet again, he uses the national health service as a football without acknowledging the fact that national health service hospitals are now dealing with 10 million in-patients a year, 3.5 million day cases a year and 14 million out-patients a year—that is 75,000 patients every single day of the year. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a crisis, I remind him that, under this Government, general and acute patient activity has increased by 80 per cent. while, under the last Labour Government, it did not increase but fell by 7 per cent.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February. [13745]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dykes: Did my right hon. Friend notice that last week's Times-Dillon Anne Frank Memorial Forum was accompanied by demonstrations by neo-Nazi groups, who paraded up and down denying that the second world war holocaust took place? Allowing for natural Home Office hesitation about an effective future text but bearing in mind that other countries have such legislation, may I wish my right hon. Friend well on his visit to the Board of Deputies of British Jews tomorrow and ask him to re-examine the issue and discuss it with the Home Secretary? May I remind him that all-party legislation on the subject was successfully launched in the House recently?
    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone deplores the sentiments expressed by those who deny the holocaust. It undoubtedly occurred—it is a matter of absolute historical fact—and I can understand the hurt, the offence and the distress of those who suffered or whose families suffered at that time. It might be right to introduce a specific offence, and of course I shall discuss the matter again with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    However, I am dubious about the practical effect of doing so, and I put several points to the House. First, there is a danger that the amount of holocaust denial material that is likely to stir racial hatred might increase if it were subjected to the sort of publicity that would follow such an approach. At present, that material is subject to prosecution under public order law—and rightly so. Furthermore, I understand that there is no unanimous view about the matter within the Jewish community. Before I reach a conclusive view, I would want to take account of the views of those who are most deeply concerned about the matter.
    Mr. Simpson: In respect of the Government's decision on the royal yacht, does the Prime Minister agree with the former Prime Minister, the Father of the House, that the conduct of the Secretary of State for Defence was not honourable? Would it not be better for the Prime Minister to admit to Britain's probably best-known sailor that, yet again, he has been hoist by his own Portillo?
    The Prime Minister: The decision on a royal yacht was not made just by my right hon. Friend the Secretary
    138
    of State for Defence; it was a Cabinet decision on what I regard as an important national asset that plays an important role in winning business for Britain abroad. I believe that the project is an investment in our nation's future, and that it is entirely appropriate that it should be met out of public funds. I look forward to the support that there will be when the yacht is built in a British shipyard, sustaining British jobs.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February. [13746]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: Will by right hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, average pensioner incomes have improved by 50 per cent. over and above inflation? Will he also confirm that 90 per cent. of today's pensioners reaching retirement age have an income in addition to their state pension? Does he think that that will be a comfort to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on his 65th birthday today?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a very happy birthday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is warmly echoed by my hon. Friends. Wrong though the hon. Gentleman has been on almost every issue during his long parliamentary career—in a minute, he is going to say that he is not 65 and I am fiddling the figures—I hope that he smiles before he is 66.
    Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the Prime Minister would now deal with the real issues in Britain today. He has been in power since 1990. He has doubled the national debt, and the public sector borrowing requirement is now more than £25 billion. He is the Prime Minister who came from the belly of the banking establishment, even though he only swept the floors at Standard Chartered. He is the Prime Minister who, on Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, along with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, lost this country £10 billion in an afternoon—and never went near a betting shop.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is becoming quite curmudgeonly in his retirement. The fact is that we have the lowest debt ratio of any of the larger economies in Europe. It is far lower than in 1979. [Interruption.] "Doubled it," shout the Opposition. If we had continued their policy, it would have more than quadrupled.
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February. [13747]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Government are committed to the preservation of grammar schools? Is he aware that Liberal-Labour-controlled Essex county council has withdrawn free transport to such schools, thus denying

    139
    thousands of parents the opportunity to send their children to some of the finest grammar schools in the country? Does he agree that, if we want to know how Labour would behave in government, we need only look at Labour in local government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's last remarks were undoubtedly true. He echoes a point made by the leader of the Labour party himself in the past; he also highlights another example of Lib-Lab unity in opposing parental choice.
    140
    The vindictive decision—for there is no other way to describe it—should not surprise us. Labour has opposed grant-maintained schools, testing, performance tables and grammar schools. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) regards test results and the like as a "fanatical doctrine": I gather that she once said that. So much for the fiction that the Labour party supports either grant-maintained schools or grammar schools. My hon. Friend has highlighted what we knew already—that Labour cares little about the wishes of parents, except when they are parents themselves.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Defence questions, I asked a question about RAF Burtonwood. The Minister of State said that no application had been made for an operator's licence at RAF Burtonwood by PDS International Ltd., but I can tell the House that the application for such a licence appeared in the "Warrington Mercury" on 6 February, and that the Ministry of Defence agents were aware of it. I therefore feel that the House has been misled.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman must know. It is a point of argument. The hon. Gentleman might try tabling another question whereby he could make his point known, and have it published again in the Official Report.
Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the question to the Prime Minister that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), have you received an application for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? As he has reached his 65th birthday, he will wish—as a good trade unionist—to give way to a younger and better man.
Madam Speaker: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done, but such an application does not come to me; it goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I understand that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) also has a birthday today. Although he may not be 65, perhaps we can have a joint pension-book party this week.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret that I have not had an opportunity to give you notice of my point of order, which concerns a change of policy announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He told me in reply to a parliamentary question:
"It is policy, on grounds of confidentiality, for Ministers not to comment publicly on individual applications for entry clearance."—[Official Report, 6 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 663.]
142
That is a very sudden change in policy. I have been asking such questions regularly over the past few years, and I entirely understand why Ministers wished to change the policy: the replies to my questions have often revealed a catalogue of appalling inefficiency and incompetence, particularly in high commissions and especially in the high commission in Islamabad.
Would you, Madam Speaker—as guardian of the rights of Members of Parliament—investigate how the change of policy has come about, and why the House was not given notice of it, still less any opportunity to debate it?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said, I had no notice of his point of order, and I have not been able to look at the question to which he refers. I am not certain that there has been a change of policy, but I will of course look at the question and the answer that has been given.
Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed during Defence questions that the Labour party's spin doctors had organised a campaign to get at the integrity and character of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. That is fair enough, because my right hon. Friend can look after himself; but may I refer to a particular remark made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)? He said that, while he was clutching a rifle—and God knows, I would be frightened to death if I saw him clutching a rifle anywhere at any time—my right hon. Friend was clutching a handful of white feathers. We all know the implication of that remark. Is it a parliamentary remark or not?
Madam Speaker: I think that tolerant language is better used across the Floor of the House. I heard the remarks that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I also heard the robust response by the Government Front-Bench spokesman.

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

  PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION
  That the Grants for Pre-School Education (Social Security Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3078) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Question agreed to.

Adoptive Mothers (Maternity Leave)
3.34 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for maternity leave for adoptive mothers and for connected persons.
When a child is born, her mother is entitled to time off work, to statutory maternity pay in most cases and to a guarantee that she can return to her job after her maternity leave. Adoptive mothers, however, are entitled to nothing. In bringing the Bill before the House, I wish to put right that gross injustice. In recent years, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made similar attempts, but have failed. We have waited too long. For the sake of the mothers, fathers and children who are directly disadvantaged and who do not enjoy the same choices as mothers who give birth to their children, we should act now.
In the past few weeks, I have talked to many despairing families who feel angry and frustrated. Lou teaches in Nottinghamshire. She adopted her first baby last year. She had to plead her case in front of a panel of colleagues. She deeply resented the fact that she had to talk about intimate personal matters, just to seek from her employers that which a birth mother would enjoy by right. She was granted adoption leave, but it was unpaid. She now wishes to complete her family by adopting another child, but her employer has told her that she will not be granted adoption leave again. She feels that she is being forced to choose between the family she loves and the job she needs.
Lou's story is repeated elsewhere. Yeter has worked for the Abbey National for nine years, but has been refused paid leave. Janet Alderson had to take ICI to an industrial tribunal after she was sacked while on unpaid adoption leave. Mrs. Harrison, a company secretary, was sacked by an engineering company in Sheffield, even though she offered to come in on Saturday mornings to make up for time off.
We all agree that giving children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their natural parents, a loving home through adoption, is a good thing that we should encourage and promote. It gives those who adopt the opportunity to experience the joys of being parents, of creating a family and of watching the children develop and grow, and it gives the children the opportunity of a fresh start—perhaps the only chance to grow up as part of a loving and caring family. There are about 7,000 adoptions every year and about half of those are in existing families and to a step-parent, so about 3,500 children are adopted into new families, and not all those families will be affected, because not all the mothers will need or want to work.
More and more adoptions are of children who are older than a year. In 1975, 21 per cent. of adoptions were of babies under one; today, less than 7 per cent. come into that group. Furthermore, eight out of 10 children who are adopted into new families come out of the care system, so the alternative to adoption is often council care, which costs nearly £50,000 per child per year, whereas statutory maternity pay costs on average £1,700 per child as a one-off payment. That care involves being shunted between foster parents and institutions, rather than enjoying the security of a family.
144
Surely our job as legislators must be to remove any unnecessary obstacles that will keep children in care and prevent those children from having the chance of happiness in childhood. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to make adoptions easier. Giving adoptive mothers statutory maternity rights is one practical but important step that he could take to make good his intent, and supporting my Bill would give the proposal early effect.
There are those who say that only women who bear children need time off. That is nonsense. Gone are the days when having children was simply considered an illness. Maternity leave is about establishing loving bonds with one's child, adjusting to being in a family and learning to cope with sleepless nights. Adoptive parents need that time as much as birth mothers do, and one could even argue that often their need is greater. When a child has suffered from neglect or abuse, that child will need time and stability, particularly in the early days. All parents have to adjust to being a parent, whether or not they have physically borne the child.
In the past, the Government have made other specious arguments. Ministers have argued that extending maternity rights to adoptive parents is not possible, because parents who adopt cannot give their employers sufficient notice—but that is not necessarily true. It can take parents two years to go through the properly stringent procedures, to be accepted as suitable prospective parents, and employers will therefore know. If older children are adopted, there is a long period of contact between adoptive parents and child, and notice could be given in that period. Birth mothers currently need to give only 21 days' notice of when they want to start maternity leave.
In the past, Ministers have said that extending maternity rights would add to employers' costs. Again, that is short-sighted nonsense. Employers save money by retaining experienced and skilled staff; they lose money by advertising for, recruiting and training new staff. Good employers—such as Boots, the Body Shop and Marks and Spencer—have an adoption leave policy. The Body Shop also gives paid time off work for its employees to attend court for adoption proceedings.
Small employers now insure for statutory maternity rights, but as there is no statutory framework, they cannot insure for adoptions. Therefore, in the case of Shelagh—who works for a large charity and who adopted a brother and sister, aged three and four—her employers, although sympathetic, told her that they were not covered by insurance for adoption leave and could not afford to pay full maternity leave rates. Adoptive mothers pay national insurance, yet they cannot get statutory maternity pay. Even worse, if they take unpaid leave, they have to pay the employer's superannuation contribution during leave, whereas birth mothers are covered by the statutory scheme.
In the past, Ministers have said that it is too difficult to legislate and that it
"would not, in the Government's view, be justifiable, particularly in view of the relatively small number of cases involved."—[Official Report, 27 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 997.]
What nonsense. Under the social fund, couples are entitled to a one-off maternity payment for each new child in the family, regardless of whether it is a birth baby or an adopted baby. If we can legislate for families on income

145
support, why not for families in which the mother works? If we wish to meet equal opportunities legislation, we can define adoption leave as being for the "principal carer" in the family, without referring to the gender of the parent.
I am supported on the Bill by a huge variety of organisations, including the Townswomen's Guild, the Mother's Union, Barnardos and the Association of Directors of Social Services. I am also supported by thousands of adoptive mothers and fathers, some of whom are in the Strangers Gallery today.
Finally, I should like to tell the House about Susan, who held a senior post on a leading women's journal. She adopted twin 11-year-old boys who had been in care and who had emotional difficulties. She asked her employer for some time off—some flexitime—simply to give her some space to help settle the children. When she approached her director of personnel to explain the situation, he said, "Why do you need time off? It's not as if they're babies." Women should not be discriminated against because they cannot have children. That cannot be right, and it cannot be just.
Adopting a child is not an easy choice to make for parents. For many children, it is, literally, a lifeline. By ending discrimination against adoptive parents on the issue of maternity leave, hon. Members can remove one obstacle that lies between a child who desperately needs a mother and a woman who wants to provide a loving home for that child. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Margaret Hodge, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Janet Anderson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. David Clelland, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Ms Jean Corston and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

Adoptive Mothers (Maternity Leave)
  ADOPTIVE MOTHERS (MATERNITY LEAVE)
  Ms Margaret Hodge accordingly presented a Bill to provide for maternity leave for adoptive mothers and for connected persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 101].
Orders of the Day

  National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is an important part of our programme. It delivers Government commitments to review the contract basis of the delivery of primary care in Britain and to open up options for the more flexible delivery of that essential part of the national health service.
  The main purposes of the Bill have been agreed not just with those involved in primary care, but on both sides of the House. I should like to remind the House of the words of the chairman of the British Medical Association on the day on which the White Paper was published:
  "We, the BMA, are fully behind the Department of Health in exploring the possibilities for making the delivery of general practice and related family services more readily available."
  As I said at the time—on the same radio programme—it is not every day that the Secretary of State for Health appears on the "Today" programme with the chairman of the BMA and secures his endorsement for the policy to be announced that day.
  What is perhaps even more remarkable is that, during the debate on the Loyal Address, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was almost fulsome in his welcome for the direction of the policy. He said:
  "There is much in the White Paper that the Opposition welcome. We welcome the idea of an enabling Bill"—
  which is precisely what the Bill is.
  "We support the proposal to develop super-surgeries … I welcome the proposal that salaried GPs should be employed by community health trusts … There is much to welcome in the White Paper".
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, went even further. He said:
  "My colleagues and I, subject to finding that the Bill does not say what we expect"—
  I think he meant to say, "does say what we expect"—
  "will vote for the Second Reading of the Bill that has been announced.—[Official Report, 25 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 247–69.]
  I hope that the Bill does not contain provisions that the hon. Gentleman did not expect and that he will feel able to vote for its Second Reading.
  The Bill is not being introduced in a confrontational way. It is being introduced in consultation with those responsible for delivering primary care. When the policy was announced—at White Paper stage and when the Bill was published—there was a remarkable degree of

  147
  consensus in support of it, particularly bearing in mind the fundamental nature of some of the reforms foreshadowed and made possible by the Bill.
  Some concerns have arisen since the announcement of the policy and I am happy to say that I hope to be able to deal with most of those concerns during my speech. The objectives of the Government and those involved in primary care are going down the same line, and I am anxious that they should not be derailed by misplaced concerns.
  I want to begin by dealing with the background and the status of primary care within the national health service. I have made clear repeatedly the fact that I regard NHS primary care as one of the key successes of the national health service since its foundation. I believe that the success of NHS primary care in its broadest sense—the delivery of general medical services and other services through the primary care network—has probably been the key element in the success of the wider health service, in meeting health needs and delivering needs-led health care to the people of Britain.
  The national health service delivers not simply good-value primary care, although it is certainly that, but care that responds to the specific demands of patients—it is close to the needs of patients and is, in the broadest and most important sense of the word, accessible health care for the patient. Primary care is based on the general practitioner, allowing the GP to act as the advocate and friend of the patient finding his way round the specialist services of the national health service. National health service primary care is an important success story.
  However, even the biggest success story can be improved on. Some aspects of primary care need attention. We have an opportunity to improve further on the record of success. One example that is often quoted with some force is that, while high-quality primary care is provided in many parts of the country, too often we find that primary care in inner-city areas does not match the standards available in the rest of the country.
  That is a serious issue. It is particularly serious, bearing in mind the mission of the NHS to deliver needs-led health care. Some of the greatest need for primary care is in those inner-city areas, where the service has not been as well developed as it should. The uneven distribution of the quality of primary care—in particular the failure to develop the quality of care in the inner cities as fast as in the rest of the country—is one of the concerns that the Bill addresses.
  The Bill also addresses a concern at the other end of the spectrum. Some of those involved in the most innovative practices at the leading edge of high-quality NHS primary care find the national contract provided by the red book a constraint on their ideas to develop primary care. It places constraints on the development of ideas across the primary-secondary divide and of new ideas for skill mix and the use of the human resources available to the health service—through the pharmacy service, dental practitioners and other skills available to the dental service—to meet patient need more effectively. The more flexible contract structure envisaged by the Bill would help.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The Secretary of State has spoken about the successes of NHS primary care and about problems in inner-city areas.
  148
  Will he consider going beyond the provisions apparently contained in the Bill to strengthen the powers of health authorities, particularly regarding dental health? Is he aware that the dental health of children in the north-west is deteriorating rapidly? Does he consider that health authorities should have stronger powers to require fluoridation in areas for which they have recommended it?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that dealing with fluoridation would substantially widen the scope of the Bill in a way that I would not commend to the House. There will be plenty of opportunities to come back to the issue of fluoridation. I suggest that the House might usefully leave that subject for another day.
  One of the explicit purposes of the Bill is to allow a more flexible contract structure for the delivery of NHS dental care, precisely to improve access for patients such as those whom the hon. Gentleman was talking about.
  Ms Joan Walley: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why parts of the country, including my constituency, have virtually no NHS dentists? Often, the only option available to people is to take out insurance policies. Should not that situation be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): That is a novel approach.
  Ms Walley: People cannot get access to NHS dental care. I do not understand how the Bill will remedy that.
  Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health says, it is a novel approach to bring in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Bill approaches the question rightly raised by the hon. Lady by giving greater power to health authorities—in agreement with general dental practitioners in the context of pilots under the Bill—to focus available resources on specific needs, providing precisely the access that she wants. That is a key part of the reason why I am in favour of more flexible contracting power between health authorities and general dental practitioners, and also why money has been provided to the dental access fund, to promote the availability of NHS dentistry in areas where access is a problem.
  It is also worth remembering that the number of courses of NHS dental care available has increased over the past 15 years by almost 8 million. The service is not in decline—quite the contrary, it is continuing to grow. Where there are problems—I do not deny their existence—with accessibility, the Bill is designed to address them.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Secretary of State discourage the private sector from operating teams of dentists? Would it not be unfortunate if a supermarket employed dentists to provide a service? Those dentists should be employed through the national health service.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's proposition is illegal under the Dentists Act 1984, and there is no proposal in the Bill to make it legal.

  149
  I refer now to the White Paper that the Government introduced last year, which foreshadowed the Bill. I stress again the role that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health played in the extensive consultation exercise that led first to the White Paper and then to the Bill. When I launched the listening exercise at the beginning of last year, it is fair to say that there was a certain amount of scepticism about whether anything would be produced. It is also fair to say that the scepticism was shared by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the predecessor of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who noted her scepticism about the process. The hon. Gentleman stands acquitted of that particular charge, as he did not hold the health brief in time to be able to express scepticism. There was also a certain amount of scepticism in the field.
  It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister that he led a consultative process which, in 12 months, produced two White Papers, 70 developments of policy addressing some long-standing concerns in primary care, and the Bill, which introduces some important new opportunities in primary care.
  Mr. William O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I should like to make a little more progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I want to stress that it is important that the White Paper that led to the Bill, and the White Paper on primary care, "Delivering the Future", which was introduced in December, are seen together, because they reflect the output of my hon. Friend the Minister's work in the listening exercise. As I said, they bring together more than 70 changes in the primary care regime, which underlines the Government's determination to see the service continue to develop.
  As a consequence of my hon. Friend's work, we introduced in December entitlement for primary care practice staff to the NHS pension scheme, the improved general practitioner retainer scheme, the extension of nurse prescribing, updated cost rent schedules, to be negotiated with the profession, a resolution of the long-standing issues surrounding the state of decay of and the perverse incentives on the use of health authority health centres, a new distribution formula—a weighted capitation-led distribution formula—for the general medical services cash-limited budget, and a total of £100 million of new money for the primary care sector, to deliver the service development to which my hon. Friend's work led.
  The Bill does not simply introduce new contract models, although that is important. It is introduced as part of a broad-based strategy to improve, strengthen and reinforce NHS primary care as the essential front line of the health service: accessible, high-quality care, being delivered with the strong support of the Government; a patient-focused service, where the Government have seen important improvements over the past 18 years. The two White Papers reflect our determination that such improvements should continue through the five years of the next Conservative Government.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Secretary of State will be aware that, from 1 April next year, Wakefield health
  150
  authority, which covers my constituency, will be entirely GP fundholding. It is a pilot scheme, the only one in the country. Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that we have an opportunity here to have a single budget for primary care and acute care in hospitals? There could be a scheme whereby there was unified provision of services right across the district, and a back-up service to primary care. Does he not feel that there would be some benefit in considering that programme as a single exercise?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting proposal. If that is a model that practitioners and local health authorities wish to follow up, I certainly do not want to do anything other than encourage them to do so.
  In coming to the House this afternoon, I had not expected bids for pilots to be promoted on the Floor of the House before the Bill had even received its Second Reading, but I am pleased to accept any bids for pilots from hon. Members who may have ideas, such as the hon. Gentleman's interesting and innovative idea on how the powers envisaged in the Bill might usefully be used to strengthen the delivery of primary health care.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman can barely contain himself. He is bubbling over with another pilot proposal.
  Mr. Bayley: It is not another pilot proposal, but in the spirit of agreement across the House on certain aspects of the Bill, I welcome the introduction of a needs-based formula for the cash-limited part of the general medical services budget. Its introduction has, however, highlighted significant disparities in funding, with some health authority areas underfunded, relative to the national average, and others overfunded. Can the Secretary of State say how soon he thinks it will be before funding meets the targets—in other words, before each health authority is funded according to its need, rather than on the old historical basis?
  Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman correctly says, in the distribution that I announced in November, we introduced, for the first time, a needs-led assessment. Hitherto, the distribution pattern was shaped by demand. Introducing needs-led targets creates quite wide disparities between the top and bottom of the scale, between different health authority areas.
  As to how quickly we move towards more even funding between different health authority areas, that will need to be judged year by year, in the light of the circumstances in the national health service budget as a whole and the GMS cash-limited element of it. Every time we use the weighted capitation formula system, it is important, where possible, to use it to allocate growth money without creating the feeling in one part of the service that the opportunity for growth or improvement in patient services has been exhausted or stopped for a significant time. The pace of advance is inevitably a function of the amount of money available and the other uses to which it might be put. It would be wrong to seek to reduce that to a time-limited commitment or a formula basis. It is properly a matter of judgment year by year.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the Secretary of State agree that, unless far better information is collected,

  151
  for example on the incidence and prevalence of diabetes at local authority ward level, it will be impossible to know whether those needs are met? When St. Vincent declaration targets are set, we shall never know whether they are met unless we know what the situation is to start with.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the better management of needs-led health care will increasingly demand higher-quality information on patient experience, the incidence of disease, the prospects of recovery from disease and, indeed, outcome indicators on the effectiveness of treatments that are offered to individual patients. That is an area where the quality of information is improving year by year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a considerable way to go in improving the quality of the information that is available to the health service.
  Against the background of the broad-based commitment to the development of primary care that I have described, I want to go on to talk about the philosophy of the Bill. It makes possible a more flexible approach to the contracts that underwrite the relationship between the health service and the independent contractor professionals who are responsible for delivering NHS primary care.
  There are four essential principles underlying the approach set out in the Bill. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that the Bill does not provide for a single, broad-brush change in the contractual relationship between the health service and independent contractors. It provides for the Secretary of State to have power to authorise pilots of new contract models, and part I sets out the provisions that would determine the terms on which those pilots would be allowed to proceed.
  Part I is concerned with the terms under which pilots of new contract models are allowed to be authorised by the Secretary of State; part II sets out the terms under which those new contract models can be converted into permanent arrangements. Clause 19(3), at the beginning of part II, makes it explicit that the Secretary of State must have cognisance of the results of pilots before authorising permanent arrangements of the kind envisaged by the Bill, be they for personal medical or dental services or for any of the contract models. Only when the pilot phase is completed do the powers under part II come into effect.
  I emphasise that that is an approach to change in the contract models for those practitioners who want to take up that option, based first on pilots; only when pilots have been properly undertaken does the Secretary of State have the power to make the changes general.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that the pilot approach will be generally welcome. It appears that at the moment the Secretary of State envisages including general and dental practitioners but excluding nurses, for example, from being able to lead pilots.
  As a simple example, there is a project for homeless people near the Imperial War museum that, it strikes me, could well be nurse-led rather than GP-led. Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be perfectly reasonable for a nurse-led or other professional-led pilot scheme to be recognised, if it proved satisfactory after appropriate testing?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important and interesting point. The Bill, as currently drafted,
  152
  explicitly allows a nurse-led pilot, or indeed a partnership involving both doctors and nurses, to be a lead contractor for the health authority contract. I intend to table some amendments in Committee to deal with some of the concerns about so-called commercialisation, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, without going into detail at this stage, that those amendments will not prejudice the right of nurses or of partnerships involving nurses to be lead contractors in the delivery of both the pilots and the long-term projects.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State deal with the concern that the Medical Practices Committee may not have any control over qualifications, and the allegation that there will be no central working party controlling the pilots?
  Mr. Dorrell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I deal with those subjects in the order in which they arise in my speech. I certainly propose to deal with both of them in the course of my remarks.
  I was talking about the importance of the pilot-based approach, which is the basis on which the Bill is constructed. The second principle that I want to underline to the House, because I take it extremely seriously, is that the pilots must be properly assessed before we go on to the use of the general powers under part II.
  Clause 5 provides specifically for the evaluation of pilots; it says that the Secretary of State has power to provide for evaluation and that that must be taken into account by the health authorities in the approval and promotion of their projects.
  The Labour amendment talks about the absence of clear criteria for evaluation. If I may say so to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in an open-minded spirit, I think that that arises from a misunderstanding. Inevitably, under the Bill, the criteria for success will vary according to the nature of the pilot that is being promoted. We expect that the purpose for which a pilot was designed would be set out in the paperwork supporting it. When that was set out, the criteria by which success or failure would be judged would be set out.
  It would be difficult to set out criteria for evaluation in the Bill, or even in secondary legislation. The purpose of evaluation must be to find whether the pilot delivers the objects for which it was established. Those objects will obviously vary according to the nature of each pilot. The evaluation must be criteria based. That the criteria should be set out at the beginning of the life of a pilot is not controversial; it is clearly an important part of the discipline underlying the piloting approach.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Is he able to tell me how long a pilot would be allowed to continue before the evaluation takes place? It seems to me that he has learned from other Departments that have conducted pilots and then acted upon them without actually getting any results from the pilots. Could he tell me how long it will be, because that obviously makes quite a difference?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my next point. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place gave an undertaking there to table an amendment—and table it we shall—to provide for

  153
  a maximum life of three years for a pilot, to ensure that there is proper assessment of it within that time. I do not propose to table a minimum period, but clearly there must be proper assessment against a set of criteria. The concern in the other place was that a pilot might develop a permanent life by not being assessed at the end of a reasonable period. The amendment will be tabled in Committee.
  The first principle is that we have pilots. The second is that they will be properly assessed. The third is that participation in pilots must be voluntary on the part of the professionals concerned. That is why clause 3(2) requires that there should be provision for professional participants to be able to withdraw from a pilot and states:
  "The Secretary of State may not approve proposals for a pilot scheme unless he is satisfied that they include satisfactory provision for any participant other than the authority to withdraw from the scheme if he wishes to do so."
  We cannot make the principle of voluntarism any clearer.
  The fourth principle, after we have reassured practitioners that participation in pilots is voluntary, is that if practitioners decide that they are no longer committed to the pilot or if it is agreed that the pilot is not successful, the Government have undertaken that practitioners must have the assurance that they can return to practise on the existing red book or other equivalent basis. The conditions are set out in schedule 1, under which the Secretary of State has powers to provide for preferential transfer of an individual back to the local practitioners list. Schedule 1 is activated by clause 11.
  The principles that I have made clear in introducing the policy are: first, that we proceed by piloting; secondly, that pilots must be properly assessed; thirdly, that participation must be voluntary; and fourthly, that participants must have an assurance of their ability to return to practise on the current basis if the pilot is not successful. The Bill provides for all four of those principles. The principles of voluntarism and the return ticket to practise on the current basis are safeguarded in the permanent schemes proposed by clause 20.
  I underline that the changes to the contractual framework within which NHS primary care is provided represent fundamental but incremental change in the structure of that part of the health service. The medical magazine Pulse has said that I am an advocate of "big bang" in primary care—the implication being that, if the legislation reaches the statute book, all the ground rules and relationships in primary care will suddenly change. I underline—as I have done on many previous occasions—that that is not the Government's policy. I do not understand how one can pilot a "big bang". The principles of piloting, voluntarism, proper assessment and the return ticket for the practitioner are firmly entrenched in the Bill. They underline the Government's commitment to important—I do not seek to diminish the importance of the change—but incremental change.
  The reason why the Government are committed to the process of incremental change relates to the point that I made at the beginning of my remarks. The fact is that NHS primary care is a success story. Its national contracts—in particular, the red book for general practitioners—are the foundation stone on which that success story is built. The continued delivery of services
  154
  on the existing contractual basis must remain an option. That element of the foundation must be safeguarded, and we are seeking to extend the range of options. We are not seeking to diminish or undermine in any sense the continued delivery of NHS primary care on the proven basis of the red book and other national contracts, when individual practitioners wish to deliver care on that basis.
  I wish to deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill. First, clause 2(5) clearly requires health authorities to consult in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State before submitting proposals for a pilot scheme. The clause says:
  "an authority must (in addition to complying with any requirements about consultation imposed by or under any other enactment) comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State about the extent to which, and manner in which, they are to consult on the proposals."
  The point about the statement in brackets is that the health authority retains the obligation to consult on any substantial change in the structure of the service under existing NHS practice. The clause imposes an extra obligation to consult on the structure of the pilot in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has made it clear that there is to be a commitment on the part of health authorities—and, indeed, on the part of the Secretary of State himself—to consult before pilots are agreed under the legislation.
  That is why we have set up national consultative groups, and that is part of my answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). We have established specific consultative groups to deal with the concerns of GPs, GDPs and other professional groups, to ensure that there is properly based and properly representative national consultation, as well as the local consultation that health authorities must conduct. The obligation to consult is in the Bill, and is reinforced by the Government's assurances and actions in setting up the consultative process.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand why some of us are sceptical about consultation, given our past experience. We consulted widely in Halifax about whether a local hospital should become a trust. Just about everybody said no, but because of the people the Secretary of State had placed there, the hospital became a trust against local people's wishes. Similarly, we do not want to lose 300 beds at the new hospital, and every consultation has agreed with that view. But the people placed by the Secretary of State are saying that we shall lose the beds anyway. Can he give us any guarantees about consultation?
  Mr. Dorrell: Of course, I give the undertaking that the consultation will be serious, but consultation means what it says; it does not mean delegating the decision-making power to a group of individuals and nor can it mean that. It would a gross derogation of the position of the Secretary of State, who is responsible to this House for decisions, if decisions properly taken by the Secretary of State were delegated informally to groups over which he had no direct control. The proposition that there must be consultation before pilots come forward is provided on the face of the Bill, and, as I said, we have established a series of national consultative groups, to ensure that the

  155
  specific concerns of the professions about particular types of pilot that might come forward can be articulated within those groups. There will be a proper consultative process on pilots that come forward.
  Let me refer to the second concern, which is, in a sense, about a specific form of consultation—the role of the Medical Practices Committee. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about that. Both my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I have met the chairman of the MPC and we have discussed the subject with the British Medical Association and other interested bodies.
  The position of the MPC within the existing red book contract remains completely unchanged by the provisions of the Bill. Regarding the position of the MPC in respect of pilots that come forward under the Bill, we propose to move an amendment in Committee to give the MPC a statutory right to be consulted, if the effect of accepting a particular pilot would be to change the total number of GPs practising in a particular health authority area.
  The key interest of the MPC is a statutory right to consultation on the balance between different parts of the country. The balance within a health authority area is something that, in the context of the pilot schemes, we would regard as the primary responsibility of the health authority, although the Secretary of State has a clear responsibility to satisfy himself on all those issues before agreeing to any pilot. That is an approach to responding to the concerns of the MPC and those who have taken up its cause which has commanded reasonably widespread support, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will commend an amendment to the Committee to give effect to that.
  I now come to the issue of so-called commercialisation. I have always felt that the concern about that is misplaced, because I have never made any secret of the fact that the purpose of introducing the Bill is to provide for a more flexible range of contracts to be available between different elements of the national health service for the provision of primary care. The examples that I have always quoted are those of bringing the community trusts into the provision of primary care; of providing practice-based contracts so that the contract does not have to be directly between the Secretary of State and the individual practitioner, but there can be contracts that bind the practice as an entity; and of contracts that deal with the delivery of health care without needing to observe the precise distinction between general medical services and secondary care, which is inherent in the existing legislation.
  The purpose of the Bill—from the days when it was in the process, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, of being born—has been to create a more flexible framework within the national health service. I recognise that some real concern has been expressed, both within the House and outside, which is why I met with representatives of the BMA, to examine whether there was a real difference in terms of objectives. In those discussions, it took us almost no time at all to recognise that we were agreed on precisely the set of objectives that we are seeking to deliver.
  We have, therefore, concluded that the best way to address the issue is to ensure that, on the face of the Bill, only members of the NHS family—that is: trusts, NHS dentists, GPs, nurses, which answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, and the staff who work for them—should put forward proposals
  156
  and hold the primary contract with a health authority, or a health board in Scotland, for the provision of personal medical or dental services where a doctor or dentist must be involved, to ensure that the appropriate medical or dental care is given.
  We shall therefore move an amendment in Committee to limit the primary contracts to contracts between the health authority and members of the NHS family. It remains true, as it is true within existing law, that those primary contractors have the opportunity to bring in the private sector to provide the support mechanism for the delivery of their clinical service if they wish.
  That emphasises the fact that it has always been the Government's intention to deliver improved NHS primary care. Whenever I have been asked whether there will be some supermarket-based surgery, I have emphasised that purely the opportunistic provision of health advice to people shopping in a supermarket is not what the Government are about. The Government are about list-based NHS primary health care, whereby GPs have a population basis to their practice, a commitment to health promotion, a commitment to the development of good health care, and proper prioritisation of health expenditure across the range of their patients. Those commitments will be preserved by the amendment that we intend to move in Committee.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Mr. Spearing: I have been listening carefully to the Secretary of State's words and imagining what an analysis would be when they are printed. Is it not possible for a GP-based service to be extended in co-operation with commercial organisations such as supermarkets, and is it not possible that they would provide facilities, perhaps at a lower cost than would be possible otherwise, to give the greater choice that the Secretary of State is now commending? Although that would not alter the contractual relationships that he properly outlined, would it not be a new move in our national health service, which would be controversial indeed?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the implications. Already, very many general practitioners rely on private sector partners to support and deliver the improved surgery buildings in which many of them now practise. With several GPs I have sat through presentations of proposals by private sector partners to support their service development, and that principle is already in current practice, under the red book contract, of the delivery of NHS general medical services. It would be absurd to remove that option, which is regularly used by today's GPs to improve the service that they deliver to their patients. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to remove that from GPs in his constituency.
  Mr. Richard Burden rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I first give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State. His announcement will be welcomed. It deals with the

  157
  principal concern that has been expressed about the Bill as it was drafted and presented. May I clarify what he appears to be saying—that the contracts that will be placed at the end of the pilot scheme and the pilots approved before that will in every case be between the authorities and, to use his phrase, members of the NHS family? Therefore, will the policing, regulation and so on remain the same as they have been until now, in that they will be professionally managed, and only NHS family members will be able to be the other party to the contract with the NHS?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that only members of the NHS family will be able to represent the contract with the health authorities. When he says "professionally managed", if he means managed by health care professionals, that is not necessarily true of trusts, but otherwise it would probably be true. I hope that that development will be as widely welcomed in the House as I believe it has been in the health care professions.
  Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State has clarified some matters, but he has left some questions unanswered. Some GPs have told me that they can already be put under pressure by private health insurance schemes to use preferred providers to treat their members. If outside bodies are involved in the provision of health centres, how will the Secretary of State ensure that such pressures will not have an even greater impact on GPs?
  Mr. Dorrell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the pressures that may exist when a patient consults a GP privately—outside the scope of the NHS—with the pressures that might be felt by a GP operating under the existing NHS red book contract or one of the new contracts. A GP operating under one of the new contracts would not experience materially different commercial pressures from the GP who currently delivers NHS care from premises that have been developed in conjunction with a private sector partner.
  Mr. Gunnell: How has someone who is as close to the Conservative party as Archie Norman got the position wrong? He must have misunderstood the Secretary of State, because he seems to suggest that Asda, which operates extensively in my constituency, would be willing to employ GPs. The Secretary of State has made it clear that that would not be allowed. Archie Norman is so close to the Conservative party that he seeks to become a Conservative Member, so how can he have got it so wrong?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's remarks do not suggest that Archie Norman has got anything wrong or that there has been any misunderstanding. It is interesting that Asda might like to employ GPs, but I am interested in the delivery of list-based general medical care—as I have defined it many times before—with the population bias that is in the current red book contract. The two interests are different.
  The question of health authorities' power to employ GPs is also mentioned in the reasoned amendment. I am not in favour of amending the Bill to include that power. If the provision of the purchaser-provider split—I shall
  158
  not use the emotionally charged phrase "internal market", but shall stick to the phrase that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury prefers, and I think that the phrases mean the same, anyway—is to mean anything, the health authority already has the power to employ GPs and GDPs. In the case of GPs, the power is provided under section 56 of the National Health Service Act 1977, so there is no need to amend the Bill.
  The Bill provides us with new opportunities to address the concerns that I mentioned earlier. I spoke of the importance of ensuring a more even distribution of care and the need to address the weaker areas of NHS and general practice primary care, especially in inner-city areas. We know that it is sometimes difficult to get GPs to commit themselves to partnership arrangements in some inner-city areas. That is what lies behind the enthusiasm of some young GPs and the community trusts to establish an employer-employee relationship to improve primary care in those areas. The Bill will make that possible.
  I also talked of the need for a more flexible frontier between the family health services sector and the hospital and community health services sector. The Bill will allow more flexible contracting of the type envisaged by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and will allow the health authorities to address the resource implications of such flexibility when they draw up new contracts.
  Thirdly, the Bill allows more flexible use of the human skills available to the health service in pharmacy, optometry, dentistry and medicine, and in nursing and therapy as well. It brings all of them into the more flexible delivery of a health care service designed to meet the specific needs of patients of a particular area. That is the purpose for which the Bill is designed.
  I regard NHS primary care as having been a success. The Bill works with the grain of that success story. It addresses some of the weaker areas and reinforces the strengths of NHS primary care. I commend it to the House.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [Lords] because, while making some welcome provisions for the development of National Health Service primary care, it fails to require health authorities to consult with patients and professional groups on pilot projects before submitting proposals to the Secretary of State; fails to provide for nurses and other primary care professionals to participate fully in pilot projects where appropriate; fails to establish criteria by which the success of pilot projects can be evaluated and fails to provide for health authorities to employ directly general practitioners; and because it includes provisions to allow private companies to employ general practitioners to provide patient care, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship and damaging one of the most abiding strengths of British general practice, which provisions will lead to even wider variation in the quality of general practice services available to different patients in different areas of the country and which will pave the way for the further privatisation of the National Health Service and the destruction of the principle of health care being available according to need and free at the point of delivery."
  Out of courtesy, I give notice that if the Bill is given a Second Reading, I shall move that it be committed to a Special Standing Committee.

  159
  Before dealing with the Bill, I must deal with another matter. Just over an hour ago in the House, the Prime Minister appeared to attribute words to me as shadow Secretary of State for Health that I have never said. I believe that the person whom the Prime Minister indicated as the shadow Health Secretary was my predecessor four times ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I know that the Government live in the past, but that was taking matters a little far.
  This is the Secretary of State's week for back-tracking. He seemed to spend most of yesterday trying rather unsuccessfully to extricate himself from the hole into which he had injudiciously plunged on the issue of Scottish devolution. Today, taking time out of his busy schedule to turn his attention to the health service, he has climbed down over a central feature of the Bill.
  Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how the Secretary of State protested when we raised the issue of commercial employment of GPs in the debate on the Queen's Speech? There was no problem at all, he claimed. The British Medical Association thought that his proposals were wonderful, he said. Even when Unichem and others started expressing a public interest in such schemes, the Government were convinced of the way forward. The Health Minister in another place stated explicitly that the Government were happy for commercial employment to take place.
  There was a storm of protest. The Secretary of State put it rather delicately: "Some concerns have arisen," he said. There was protest from all the Opposition parties in the House. There was strong protest from the BMA and throughout the health service. Now, at last, the right hon. Gentleman has climbed down. We welcome that, but the mere fact that he thought that he could get away with it is worrying enough. It speaks volumes about the Government's real agenda. Heaven help us if they were elected again.
  I shall return in a moment to the commercial involvement of GPs. My fear is that the Secretary of State is leaving a massive loophole in place, which destroys the fine words that we have heard from him this afternoon about the NHS family.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may wish to consider this point before he returns to the matter. In reply to the intervention that he courteously allowed me, the Secretary of State did not specify a possible route for subsidy or assistance to GPs, possibly associated with pharmaceutical services, as he will be able to direct if the Bill goes through, or with health stores or other equipment connected with the promotion of health. That remains, if not a huge loophole, at least a roadway—probably to the supermarket.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to pinpoint that problem, to which I shall return in a moment. In the meantime, I shall concentrate on the points on which we agree.
  We welcome the broad shape and thrust of the Bill. I think that all hon. Members strongly endorse the concept of a primary care-led NHS. It is correct to put the primary care team—doctors, nurses, health visitors, pharmacists and others who are closest to the patient—in the driving seat when making decisions about care and treatment. The Bill proposes a number of ways in which primary care can take a bolder or a better lead.
  160
  For example, the proposed new rules for appointing general practitioners to single-handed practices make absolute sense, and we shall support them. They are long overdue. There are many single-handed practices in inner-city areas, and at present the rules state that, if such a practice falls vacant, an applicant who is potentially sufficiently qualified must be appointed to the vacancy—even if he or she may not be the right person for the job. The Bill remedies that by ensuring that appointments to single-handed practice vacancies are appropriate and adequate.
  The Bill's provision on the employment of salaried GPs is also welcome. Recruiting GPs is a serious problem—particularly in some urban areas—and this proposal for their salaried employment offers a partial solution. The Bill correctly envisages the employment of GPs by community health trusts. That is fine and we agree with it, as I have said before in the House, but it also envisages acute hospital trusts employing GPs.
  Are the Government convinced that that is a sensible proposal? If a GP is employed by an acute hospital trust—particularly if it is the main local provider of surgery and secondary treatment for that GP's potential patients—one must ask: what price the purchaser-provider split? The Secretary of State knows that I do not particularly like the term "purchaser-provider"—I much prefer the "commissioner-provider" division. However, it is an important distinction, and, if a GP is employed by an acute hospital trust to which he sends some or all of his patients, that distinction vanishes.
  Why have the Government ruled out the possibility of health authorities employing salaried GPs? I think that the danger of blurring the commissioner-provider distinction is far less in that instance than in the case of acute trusts employing GPs, yet the Government state clearly in the Bill that health authorities will not be entitled to employ salaried GPs. We shall certainly want to return to that matter if the Bill is sent to a Special Standing Committee. The Government must sort out their reasoning on that point.
  The Bill's provision for pilot schemes to develop practice-based team care and to develop new models of providing NHS dentistry is very welcome. We particularly like the Government's new-found enthusiasm for pilot projects—it is a pity that they were not so enthusiastic six years ago when they put the internal market in place. At that time, the then Secretary of State—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—said that he would not entertain the idea of pilot projects as it was simply a way of ensuring that nothing got off the ground. As a result, he implemented the big-bang approach, which led to the internal market and to many of the subsequent problems. It would have been far better if the Government had realised then that pilot schemes, pilot projects and phased introductions were a much more efficient way of examining changes in the health service than implementing the internal market.
  I have several questions about pilot schemes. First, what consultation will take place? The Secretary of State pointed out correctly that clause 2(5) says that there will be consultation, but it does not specify who should be consulted. It does not state whether patients will be consulted at any stage in the process. We believe that they should be consulted, and the British Dental Association agrees with us. It has expressed concerns about the nature

  161
  and extent of consultation before a pilot scheme is established. We need much greater detail and clarification from the Government about that specific point.
  Secondly, what provision will be made for nurse-led pilot schemes and schemes that are initiated not just by nurses but by others in the primary care sector? The Liberal Democrats' health spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), has also raised the issue. The Secretary of State has said that the Bill allows such pilot schemes to go ahead. However, that view is not shared universally outside the House, where there is serious concern about whether nurse-led pilots will be possible within the context of the Bill. We believe that that point should be clarified to ensure that such pilots can take place.
  Mr. Gunnell: Is it not correct that that provision—in the form of an amendment—was explicitly rejected by the Government in another place, on the quite arbitrary grounds that the Secretary of State would recognise nurses' rights?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Opposition in another place tabled an amendment specifically to address that issue, and it was rejected. We shall try again if the Bill goes to Committee.
  Thirdly, what independent evaluation mechanisms will be introduced for monitoring and assessing pilot schemes? Clause 5 says that the Secretary of State has the power to provide for evaluation. However, it is crucial that evaluation criteria are objective and not politically driven. It is no accident that a proper independent evaluation of what has happened with single-practice GP fundholding has not occurred at any stage in the past six years—despite the fact that it has been one of the major planks of the Government's reform of the health service in recent years. Perhaps the reason is that such evaluation must be objective and non-partisan. We shall press that issue in Committee to ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty to initiate independent and objective evaluation commensurate with his powers under the Bill.
  On the subject of consultation, I want to ask the Secretary of State a specific question about the White Paper that led to the Bill. Before he issued it last autumn, at what stage did he discuss its contents with the Medical Practices Committee? The committee has a crucial role to play in ensuring proper accessibility to general practice around the country. The MPC must retain its crucial role, which will be even more crucial as the pilot schemes are established under the Bill. It would appear that, before the Government published their White Paper, they did not tell the MPC what was going to be in it. That strikes me as surprising, if not foolish.
  I want to refer to two other matters that could have been dealt with in the Bill but were not. The first relates to the training of doctors, particularly the pre-registration house doctor year, part of which should be spent in general practice. The Medical Act 1983 prohibits general practice training in privately owned premises, whereas it can be provided in a health service-owned health centre. That is ridiculous. The General Medical Council has been raising this matter for 15 years. We should encourage students to learn about general practice, but the existing
  162
  law discourages them from doing so. Why will not the Government take the opportunity of this Bill to put that right? We will co-operate with them in Committee if they want to introduce proposals. I very much hope that this long-standing anomaly, which inhibits the proper training of doctors in general practice, can be and will be put right. We will do everything we can to assist that, if the Government agree.
  Secondly, registration protection is required for the titles of "paramedic" and "ambulance". I was astonished to learn recently that anyone can put on a jacket with "paramedic" plastered across the back, can sit in his own private car with "ambulance" plastered along the side, can turn up at the scene of an accident and can offer assistance—sometimes perverse assistance—to the people involved.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is like the Secretary of State for Health speaking on Scottish devolution.
  Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend pertinently observes, it is a little like the Secretary of State speaking on Scottish devolution.
  The bogus paramedic may arrive at the scene of an accident in flying tartan colours. He may have no skill and no training, and what he is up to is not monitored. He may cause mayhem. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more apposite the analogy becomes. Surely, statutory protection of such titles as "paramedic" and "ambulance" is needed, and the Bill gives us an opportunity to put that right, too.
  I must return to the issue of commercialisation. The Secretary of State said that the primary contract for the employer of a GP must be within the NHS family. So far, so good: we welcome the Government's U-turn. But the Bill continues to allow, and indeed could encourage, the development of an association, including a financial relationship, between a GP and a private commercial organisation.
  At present, a GP can subcontract an element of the provision of services—for example, to a deputising service for out-of-hours work. That tends to be the exception rather than the rule, and such action is heavily circumscribed. The health authority must recognise the subcontracted service, must check its quality and must limit the amount of time that it can be used. From what the Secretary of State said today, it seems that he permits and encourages the development of far stronger associations with the private sector.
  I am concerned that, even with the Secretary of State's promised amendment, the Bill provides no guarantees about the limits on such commercial involvement in the provision of GP services. We need to know what restrictions, if any, the Secretary of State will impose. This practice is, potentially, wide open to abuse. He may have stopped direct employment, but he is specifically allowing commercialisation by other means.
  If, for example, a GP were to develop a link with Unichem—it would be associated with him and would offer complementary services—what guarantee is there that the confidentiality of patients would not be put at risk? What guarantee is there that patients would not be subjected to overwhelming commercial pressures to buy the products of companies involved in a financial

  163
  partnership? Will the Secretary of State reassure other GPs, who provide a high-quality service and have invested their lives and savings in their practices, that they will not be completely decimated by the activities of a commercial company that has teamed up with a neighbouring GP? Those important questions arise directly from the Secretary of State's comments this afternoon.
  From the moment the White Paper was published, we said that the doctor-patient relationship was at risk from the original proposal in the Bill. It is less at risk now that the Secretary of State has climbed down on the issue of direct employment. But there remains the possibility of commercial involvement with GP services, and that also threatens to undermine the doctor-patient relationship. It is still at risk.
  As Dr. Ian Bogle, the chair of the GP's committee of the British Medical Association, said recently:
  "The GP must be free to be the advocate of the patient and to exercise independent clinical judgement. Commercial organisations inevitably have other priorities such as the needs of their shareholders and the requirement for profit. There is no room for a third party in the doctor's consulting room."
  That statement expresses effectively and strongly the concern that we still have about the commercialisation of the doctor-patient relationship. That is why I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for our reasoned amendment.
  Given our concerns, I shall propose that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee, for the simple reason that the Government have been all over the place with this Bill. The central feature of commercial employment has been withdrawn, but there is continuing doubt about the precise meaning of the replacement provision.
  In the other place, the Government tabled 96 new amendments the evening before the debate on Report. They withdrew 89 of them on Report, but reintroduced many of them on Third Reading. Many of them were tidying amendments, which shows that the original text of the Bill was badly drafted and ill thought out. We need a Special Standing Committee to help the Government to sort out their own mind on much of the Bill. Two or three sittings in a Special Standing Committee, where we could take evidence, listen to representation and learn the views of the people involved in primary care would do a world of good and would improve the quality of the Bill.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has raised an important procedural issue. Would it not be reasonable to assume that, if the Government oppose the motion of which he has given notice, they have something to hide which so far they have not made clear?
  Mr. Smith: An impartial observer might, of course, place such an interpretation on any such action by the Government. It is also possible that the Prime Minister has a secret plan to call an early general election—in which case I think that we would be pleased enough by his decision to forgive the Government for opposing the motion.
  Primary care is, of course, crucial. Many provisions in the Bill are welcome, but in some cases we feel that the Government have simply got it wrong. The process that has brought the Bill to the House has been cack-handed
  164
  from the start, and there are ominous signs that the commercialisation of GP services will remain on the Government's agenda.
  Quite simply, this Government cannot be trusted with the health service. They want to turn it from the proud service that it was founded as to the commercial business based on an internal market that it has, in fact, already become, to the detriment—above all—of the patients and others who depend on it. It is time for a Labour Government who believe in the health service to take over.
  5.1 pm
  Sir Roger Sims: The Bill is about the provision of primary care to patients by doctors and nurses, and I want to deal briefly with each of those three groups.
  First, let me say something about patients. It is clearly desirable for GP services to be convenient and easily accessible. I commend the idea of pilot schemes, and the flexibility foreshadowed in the White Paper and the Bill. The Opposition seem to be raising a hare in regard to commercialisation, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with it very effectively. It is unfortunate that, having said that there are many good things in the Bill, the Opposition still appear determined to oppose it—although the main ground on which they seem to be doing so no longer exists.
  I see no objection to the idea of general practices' being available in the most convenient sites for patients. Why not site them at railway stations, for instance? It is interesting to note that a private practice has been successfully established at Victoria station in the past few months. I also think that there should be far more practices in shopping centres: offering such facilities at Boots, for example, would accord very sensibly with the overall concept. I can imagine eyebrows being raised at the idea of siting a general practice at the back of a supermarket, but it would surely be convenient to have one immediately next to the largest supermarket in the district. Let us try out those ideas, by means of the pilot schemes referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  However, I hope that we shall not lose the principle whereby patients are registered with GPs. In some countries, patients can go to any doctor they like, and, if they are not happy with the treatment that they receive from the doctor down the road, they can go to another doctor next time. Indeed, sometimes patients "shop around". Although I think that we should retain the system that allows a patient who is not happy with the doctor with whom he is registered, and who feels that the doctor-patient relationship is breaking down, to change to another doctor, I also think it important to retain the principle of registration. The practice should have all the records of the patient who is registered with it, and, if the patient transfers to another doctor, the records should be transferred as well. We should not discard that procedure lightly.
  The Bill is about the provision of services by GPs. It is important for us to have enough GPs, for them to be trained to high standards and for those standards to be maintained. It is worrying to note that the number of

  165
  trainees entering general practice has been falling steadily: between 1985 and 1995, there was a reduction of 20 per cent.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: In fact, the fall has been even greater. A number of trainees come from overseas, and, having completed their training, return to the country from which they came.
  Sir Roger Sims: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  I was pleased that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised a specific aspect of medical graduate training. As he explained, new medical graduates must spend 12 months as provisionally registered doctors before obtaining full registration. Their training must include a minimum of four months in medicine and four in surgery, but they are allowed to spend up to four months in general practice. Most pre-registration house officers divide their year between medicine and surgery, spending six months in each. At present, only one university—London—has approved a general practice for pre-registration house officer service, although a number of others are keen to make such experience available to their graduates.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, section 12 of the Medical Act 1983 restricts the experience of general practice that may be counted towards the 12 months of general clinical training needed for full registration to that obtained in practices based in publicly owned premises. The fact is that very few general practitioners operate from publicly owned premises. The House may be surprised to learn that, of 3,800 new doctor graduates each year, only three spend part of their pre-registration time in general practice.
  Obviously, during their pre-registration year, graduate doctors will be considering how their medical careers are to develop, and deciding on which branch of medicine to concentrate. It is clearly desirable for them to spend part of the time in a general practice, and to see what goes on there. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that merits consideration. All that is needed is the repeal or the amendment of section 12 of the Medical Act to remove the legal restriction with regard to the premises in which a pre-registration year can be spent.
  The House will be aware that I am a lay member of the General Medical Council. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the GMC has asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to consider taking the steps that I have mentioned. I know that he is not unsympathetic, but he has said that he is not minded to use the Bill as a means of making my amendment. I invite him to reconsider that and I hope that, perhaps in Committee, the opportunity will be taken to amend the Bill, which, after all, is about the provision of primary care services by general practitioners. I hope that he will take the opportunity to discuss the matter further.
  There is also the issue of maintaining standards. The House will recall that it passed the Medical (Professional Performance) Act 1995, since when the GMC has been doing a lot of work on the mechanics of implementing those proposals. Tomorrow, it will hold a conference to take the matter further, with a view to implementation later in the year.
  166
  Under the performance review proposals, doctors who have not necessarily done something that merits the label of serious professional misconduct, but whose general performance standards have fallen below that which one would reasonably expect, can be assisted by the GMC to come back up to the standard that they should be at. It will be not a punitive procedure, but one to assist and to help bring doctors up to the standard that one would reasonably expect.
  Of course, that will apply only to those doctors about whom complaints have been made. Perhaps in passing I could comment that all nurse have to renew their registration with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting every three years and, when they do so, they have to satisfy the council that they have kept abreast of medical knowledge and development. There is nothing comparable in relation to doctors. Having completed his training and been registered as a doctor with the GMC, a doctor can remain on the register and, although he may go for years without practising, he can come back and practise without having had anything by way of refreshers.
  I am not suggesting that that happens; nor am I trying to raise a scare about this. I know that much work is being done by the royal colleges with regard to accreditation. It seems that there is scope for steps to be taken to ensure not only that doctors are trained, as they are, to high standards—people would not come from all over the world to train here as doctors if we did not have such fine training facilities—but that they should maintain them and keep abreast of developments in the medical sector throughout their working life.
  In 1986, a report was published by the then Mrs. Cumberlege, which recommended that the Department of Health should agree a limited list of items and simple agents that may be prescribed by nurses. In 1989, the Crown report put more detail on the proposal and made the point that enabling nurses to prescribe would benefit doctors, nurses and patients. The Government subsequently made sympathetic noises about the idea, but seemed reluctant to act, so, in 1991, when I was successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I introduced a Bill to enable nurses to prescribe.
  After an initial lack of enthusiasm, the Department of Health embraced the proposal and assisted me in getting the legislation safely through the House, after which it was assisted in its passage through another place by the same author of the original 1986 report, who was by then Baroness Cumberlege, sitting on the Back Benches. It was just before the 1992 general election that I went to the other place and saw the Queen's Assent being given to several Bills, including my own, immediately followed by the order for the dissolution of Parliament to precipitate the general election, so I only just made it, but the Bill did get on to the statute book.
  Progress since has been disappointingly slow. We have had eight pilot sites on nurse prescribing, but we still await the results of those. I am pleased, however, that, on what appears to be the eve of another general election, the Government plan to extend prescribing to a further seven trusts and their White Paper refers to full implementation by 1998. I hope that that will be adhered to.
  Originally, the proposal was that only a limited range of drugs and dressings could be prescribed by nurses, and that nurse prescription should be restricted to district

  167
  nurses and health visitors. I believe that the pilots have shown that the range could be extended and certainly that the ability to prescribe could be given to more nurses. Practice nurses are an obvious example. Nurses in cottage hospitals and hospices where there are no doctors in constant attendance are another group that could be considered for prescribing powers.
  When I introduced my private Member's Bill, there was some suspicion about it among doctors, who saw their role in prescribing being eroded. I think that attitudes now are different. Doctors recognise the value of a role for nurses in prescribing, which of course relieves doctors of work, saves them time and enables them to apply their skills in other ways. As the Crown report says, nurse prescribing benefits doctors, nurses and patients.
  The Bill recognises that changes are needed in the provision of primary care. It proposes changes with an approach that, if any criticism could be made, is cautious. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate to enable me later to attend a dinner with Madam Speaker. I am sure that the Government Front-Bench team will understand that I do not mean any discourtesy if I am unable to be here during the winding-up speech.
  It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is nice to be in a forum where there is so much that we agree with, and, in particular, that the Minister for Health was so uncomfortable when he was being goaded almost and invited to respond to the points on section 12 of the Medical Act 1983. Being a lay member of the General Medical Council, like the hon. Member for Chislehurst, I want to develop in a little more detail both the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury have made on the matter.
  It may be that, with a little persuading, the Minister will make an announcement in his reply to the debate. I am sure that, in his mind, he has almost reached the conclusion that, because of all-party support, he can very easily yield to requests for action. It is a discrete problem, and it stands as an issue on its own, quite apart from anything else that the General Medical Council is doing on its fitness to practice procedures.
  As the hon. Member for Chislehurst rightly said, it is astonishing that only one university has managed to maintain a long-running scheme for pre-registration house officer posts in general practice. That one scheme is supervised by St. Mary's hospital medical school, at Lisson Grove health centre, in west London. The benefits of the scheme are well documented, and I am sure that the Minister—as he so regularly reads the British Medical Journal—will no doubt recall Joe Wilton's article of 11 February 1995, which documents that experience so well. If he cannot immediately recall the article, I am sure that he will be able to do so in the next few hours. Other arrangements to provide a spell in general practice have occasionally been made by universities—usually to deal with pre-registration house officers experiencing problems in their hospital training—with demonstrable educational benefits.
  As the Minister well knows, the GMC is responsible for overseeing the pre-registration year. It wishes, as we all do, that year to be a high-quality experience for the
  168
  new graduate, setting the seal on basic medical education and providing an excellent foundation for a career in medicine. The council has long encouraged the use of general practice in the pre-training year, but the legal obstacle created in the 1983 Act and in previous legislation still remains, and it is a major blockage. Last November, the GMC consulted on new recommendations for the pre-training year, and many educational institutions commented on that technical provision of the law and asked the GMC to press for its abolition.
  I shall give only one example of the obstacle in operation, from the many examples that the GMC received. It is from Dr. Jamie Bahrami, who is the director of postgraduate general practice education at the university of Leeds. He responded to the chairman of the GMC education committee by stating:
  "I would, however, like to bring to the attention of the Committee that the restriction placed in the Medical Act on the use of Health Centre as the only suitable location for training in General Practice is outdated and requires urgent revision."
  There is therefore a problem, although change has taken place and is taking place. General practitioners are increasingly practising in buildings that are not publicly owned, and the fact that those buildings are not publicly owned prevents medical schools from incorporating a four-month training period in the pre-registration year. Obviously, that situation cannot be continued indefinitely. It is an extraordinarily unsatisfactorily situation in which, out of 3,800 new doctors who graduate each year, only three have the option to do some of their pre-registration house officer training in general practice. That restriction to publicly owned premises no longer has any purpose or even any meaning.
  Figures recently issued by the joint committee on postgraduate training in general practice show a fall in the number of certificates of completion of GP training from 2,562, in 1981, to 1,866 in 1995. The joint committee has also drawn to the attention of the Department of Health evidence of problems of recruitment to general practice.
  Today's debate and the Bill present the Government with a crucial opportunity in their drive towards primary care led by the NHS. They provide the Minister with a wonderful opportunity to tell the House that he is now no longer prepared to tolerate that outdated, anachronistic and antediluvian obstacle. Instead of finding an excuse—I am sure that he would be able to trump one up; it would not take him long to do so, if he wanted to—he can take positive action and give a commitment that will encourage universities and their medical departments to move ahead in offering a four-month training period to trainee general practitioners in their pre-registration year, should they wish to take advantage of it.
  If the Minister will do that, I am certain that it will encourage more GPs to enter that part of medical practice. Perhaps it will also begin to stem the loss of such GPs, because of the enormous pressures of general practice. If the Minister gives that commitment, I am certain that he will go down in history as the Minister who did at least a little bit of good, with all-party support, during the Bill's passage.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I very much welcome the Bill and most of what it proposes—as do the majority of the general practitioners in my

  169
  constituency, according to the outcome of a consultation initiative which I shall share with the House later in my speech.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is following a good example, I am happy to note.
  Mr. Atkinson: I will return to the matter of consultations by Conservatives a little later in my speech, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), as he recently placed a letter on that subject in my local newspaper, and his comments were entirely untrue. I will remind him about that later.
  If my general practitioners are happy with the Bill, so are my constituents. Many hon. Members will recall occasions on which doctors have not been happy with changes proposed by the Government and have not hesitated to use their surgery power as a source of patient protest. I hope that such confrontation between a Conservative Government and the medical profession is in the past—except for the occasional broadside from the current British Medical Association Council chairman in office, which is probably essential to his re-election.
  Such avoidance of confrontation has much to do with the Government's approach, and particularly with their ever greater preparedness to listen to the professions. Nowhere has that been better demonstrated than in the Government's approach to the future of primary care. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I support the tribute that he paid today to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for his listening exercise. I believe that he has conducted that exercise on such a wide scale that use of a Special Standing Committee, as requested by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), is unnecessary.
  I would normally have a great deal of sympathy for such a request, as I believe in the Special Standing Committee approach for very detailed and complex legislation—such as the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1994, which used that approach and was much the better for it. On this occasion, however, because of the wide consultation exercise conducted, such an approach is not justified.
  I believe that the Bill will consolidate the great success of the Government's reforms in primary care and build upon them substantially to provide the even wider range of services for patients which is its aim. It must be clear from what has been proposed in the two White Papers, much of which is provided for in the legislation, that primary care in this country will change considerably from next year: it will get even better, and will show that, through its national health service and general practitioners, this country continues to provide one of the finest health services in the world—a fact that is continually borne out by my constituents.
  I accept that the dynamic changes to come follow almost constantly imposed changes over the past seven years—changes for the better—which general practitioners have not enjoyed. The new changes will succeed because they will be GP-led. The initiatives that the Bill heralds through pilot schemes will lie entirely with GPs and will not be imposed from above. I hope that such an approach will raise morale among GPs and encourage recruitment as well as leading to increasing rewards for them, as is their due.
  170
  Last month, anticipating the Second Reading of the Bill, I wrote to all the general practices in my constituency outlining what is proposed in the Bill and referring to what is in the White Paper entitled "Primary Care: Delivering the Future", which will also be implemented through the legislation. Bearing in mind that GPs are probably under even greater pressure than Members of Parliament—if that were possible—I enclosed a quick questionnaire for them to complete.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Did it come from Tory central office?
  Mr. Atkinson: No, it did not come from central office—it was my own composition and I should be happy to send a copy to the hon. Gentleman, who might be educated by it.
  I suppose that I should not have been surprised that less than half of those quick questionnaires have been returned so far, such is the work load of GPs. However, the replies that I have received have been interesting, helpful and supportive of the Bill. They all welcomed the opportunity to develop new services for patients. The only caution came from those who already felt overstretched in meeting existing demand from patients. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said again today, however, the opportunities provided for by the legislation are entirely voluntary.
  There was no shortage of ideas for new services that my GPs would opt to introduce. Education on drug and alcohol misuse as well as detoxification and support were mentioned frequently, followed by dietetics, chiropody and physiotherapy. Such new services will follow those which GPs have introduced in recent years such as epidurals, vasectomies, sclerotherapy, psychology, counselling, acupuncture, adolescent clinics, participation in schemes for doctors on call out of hours and nurse practitioners.
  That all represents an ever wider range of services which are for the greater convenience of patients because they are available at the surgery, closer to the patient, and it is all thanks to the Government's reforms in primary care. Only one failure was reported—by a GP who had introduced a dermatology service which proved too expensive for the health authority and is now back in the hospital.
  I received less enthusiastic responses to my question about whether GPs welcomed the new opportunities for budgetary control of wider services. Most of them did not welcome that, because they did not see themselves as financial managers. That is perhaps not surprising, since most of those who responded to my survey are non-fundholding GPs and as such are in a minority among the GPs in the Dorset health authority area. Obviously, I am disappointed about that, as I am sure is my hon. Friend the Minister.
  However, I should point out that GPs in the Bournemouth area have not seen budget holding to be as advantageous as GPs elsewhere in the country because of the already high level of service and management provided by Dorset health authority and the equally excellent Dorset Healthcare NHS trust and the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals NHS trust—I pay tribute to the chief executives, Ian Carruthers, Roger Browning and Stuart Marples. I regret that the Lib-Lab Bournemouth council has passed a resolution opposing the trusts and their self-managing status, and I intend to pursue that issue in the forthcoming general election.

  171
  It was not surprising to find little enthusiasm from my GPs for the opportunity to consider the establishment of new super-surgeries. The supermarket approach was regarded as totally inappropriate. The provision of a surgery service where people shop, and perhaps even a primary care centre where a range of services is available—such as a dentist, an optician and a pharmacy in a one-stop shop—is a bold idea and is more likely to appeal to the new providers such as the NHS trusts, private health care providers and other commercial companies envisaged in the White Paper, "Choice and Opportunity".
  The future of the NHS is or should be about bringing the health service closer to the patient, not the other way round. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House earlier today, it should be about better ways of delivering national health services to patients.
  My questionnaire also asked about the White Paper entitled "Primary Care: Delivering the Future", which includes proposals made possible by the Bill. The GPs all welcomed access to the NHS pension scheme for practice staff from September, but they expect it to be properly funded and not an expense to be faced by the practice. A reservation was raised by a constituent of mine who is a practice nurse. She said that staff employed by trusts and health authorities will have the automatic right to opt into the NHS pension scheme, but practice staff will not. She feels that that would divide staff rather than remove barriers. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that concern in his reply, as he did in the letter that I received from him last week.
  There was a broad welcome for the full implementation of nurse prescribing next year, with the warning that they must also accept the medico-legal risk of any complications rather than its being borne by the GP, who currently accepts the risk.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of yesterday's news about fraud in the payment system of prescriptions to pharmacists. Perhaps he will use this opportunity to comment on that.
  There was little welcome for the easing of restrictions on overseas doctors entering general practice here. That will not surprise my hon. Friend the Minister, because he will be aware of the latest report of the medical work force standing advisory committee of the General Medical Services Committee, which said that it was wrong that Britain should continue to be a net importer of doctors.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims) said, the number of doctors training for general practice has been falling steadily over the past six years. Rather than lowering the standards by attracting overseas doctors, we should do more to train our own, perhaps by establishing a new medical school. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that a new millennium medical school to train more British doctors might be an appropriate initiative for our medical profession to commemorate the millennium.
  I have found my consultation with GPs very helpful. As I have said, the results of that consultation contradict what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said in my local newspaper, the Bournemouth Evening Echo, when he said:
  "We"—
  the Liberal Democrats—
  "pride ourselves on always doing our best to find out what is really happening on the ground, unlike the Conservatives."
  172
  Having heard what I have said, I hope that he will accept that my consultation exercise is probably far better than anything that he has ever done in my area. I have been following the excellent example of my hon. Friend the Minister, who has listened to and learnt from the professions. I am sure that that has resulted in a better Bill and a better service to patients.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has a bit of a cheek. I am delighted that he has followed our example and has surveyed his general practitioners. I will happily swap my survey with his, so that he can see the best practice and realise the inspiration for such exercises. General practitioners in Bournemouth and everywhere else have probably never had so many surveys. If the Tory party is now encouraging its people to send them out, it is following the good example of my colleagues and hon. Friends. As the Minister has often said, we have been carrying out surveys for months and they have been very helpful.
  I am not sure that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East understood all the questions that he asked, or the answers. I am not pretending that I do either. Some of the services about which he was reciting responses seemed slightly beyond his present understanding, but we are all here to be educated. I was caught out on a similar subject yesterday.
  On Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill, soon after the war, Mr. Clement Davies, then leader of the Liberal party, said:
  "Surely, the one consideration should be: What is likely to give the best and fullest service to the people, wherever they may be?"—[Official Report, 1 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 251.]
  That was the right test then, and it is the right test now. It is always the right test for health service legislation. Our primary consideration should not be what is best for doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, radiographers or any other professionals, but what is best for patients. Of course, if the professionals are not on board and their proper concerns have not been addressed, there is a risk of the legislation not being good. That is the spirit in which my party approaches the Bill.
  The Secretary of State said—subject to misunderstanding of the syntax—that so long as the Bill, when published, contained nothing fundamentally different from what was trailed and provided that it dealt with some of the concerns that had been and were being expressed, my hon. Friends and I would be minded to support it. I will therefore explain our position in the light of the Bill and the Secretary of State's speech.
  The national health service is probably the most brilliant creation of the British welfare and social services this century. We have to go on building on this great creation. I am in favour of best practice and innovation developing in the health service. I do not want a drab, uniform national health service. To use a phrase from somewhere else, I am in favour of a health service where a thousand flowers bloom—but we are concerned that the blooms in the health service should be in a national health service garden and under the supervision of a national health service gardener. The danger, before the Secretary of State's speech, was that the Bill would breach that principle.
  I acknowledge the way in which the Government have gone through the procedure. They published a White Paper and there has been consultation. The Minister

  173
  should not be full of self-congratulation about the consultation—to be fair, he has not done so thus far, but others said how wonderful he was. No doubt the consultation was carried out assiduously. I have heard some say that it was a good exercise, while others have been less complimentary. I suppose that that is the lot of any Minister. It was right to carry out that consultation.
  I feel that one aspect, however, is missing from the procedures of the House. When a White Paper is published, consideration of it should be charged first to the relevant Select Committee before the measures are incorporated in a Bill. My hon. Friends and I have also often proposed the publication of draft Bills, so that the drafting errors that often occur can be ironed out.
  I am not against the idea of the Bill being committed to a Special Standing Committee. This is not the most obvious Bill for that procedure, because of all the work that has been done already and the general happiness of the professions with the measures. I am slightly concerned that the proposal to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee may be an excuse to delay it. We have to have an election by 22 May and it is likely to be by 1 May, if not earlier. This would probably not be the first Bill to be considered in the next Parliament, so I would rather we put a Bill on the statute book before then, given that it has broad support.
  Unless the wind-up speech from the Labour Front Bench persuades my colleagues and me that the Special Standing Committee has a specific purpose that can add to the benefit of the Bill without delaying it, I shall not be persuaded that it would be appropriate to support the idea. I am not opposed in principle, but I believe that we may be able to achieve the necessary changes in Committee.
  I pay tribute to the work done in the other place. Unusually for such a Bill, it started in the House of Lords, where it was well worked over. I pay particular tribute to my colleagues, Lady Robson of Kiddington and Lord Alderdice, who did the bulk of the work for us. They picked up particularly on two issues. One has been addressed fully, but the other has not. The first was that there should be NHS pension rights for nurses. The Government have now conceded that practice nurses, in particular, should be in the NHS pension scheme. That is a welcome advance, which could be written into the Bill. I know that there is always debate about what is written into Bills, but I ask for that to be reconsidered.
  The second particular issue raised by my colleagues in the other place was the length of pilot schemes. I am grateful to the Government for having moved on that. The Secretary of State dealt with part of the problem—saying that they should not run for more than three years—but the Government have not yet conceded that they should have a minimum period. My colleagues in the House of Lords argued for an 18-month minimum. I take a more flexible approach and think that they could be shorter, but pilot schemes—I welcome the fact that the Bill is pilot scheme-led—should have a minimum period sufficient to show that the water has been tested. The Minister could usefully accept a 12-month minimum.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's confirmation that any of the professions in the health service can lead the pilot projects. Nurses and other professions will welcome that. They will be glad to have heard it and had it read into the record.
  174
  Most of all, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State appears to have listened to the British Medical Association and all the representations made in the House of Lords and in this House by all Opposition parties, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, that we should restrict the opportunity for commercialisation. That is a considerable change of Government policy, and a welcome one. I regard it as a sensible move to get maximum consensus for the Bill.
  I want to raise the matters flagged up in the Labour party's reasoned amendment which have some merit, especially the one dealing with commercialisation. Had there not been an announcement by the Secretary of State, my colleagues and I would have voted for the reasoned amendment. The announcement dealt with the reasoned amendment's main core, although I shall come to some subsidiary matters in a second.
  I am prepared to accept that clause 2(5) guarantees—I take what the Secretary of State said to confirm this—that there will be consultation with professional groups and patients on all pilot schemes. I should say, however—the point has been made from the Opposition Benches before—that the health service's record on consultation is not one of brilliant success. We have all been through consultation processes during which the public have expressed an overwhelming view, but the blessed people in charge have ignored it. Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the Bill, there will be a duty in law not only to take into account consultation responses but to give them reasonable and proper weight? If not, is he prepared to table amendments to ensure that?
  Putting aside for a minute the fact that, at local and regional level, we have a very undemocratic health service, about which I have strong views, we cannot ask people for their views—whether on primary health provision, hospital closures or mergers—and then say, "Thank you very much. We have consulted but we are going to ignore you." When we have sought the views of doctors and professionals, just as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, myself and others have, we need to take them into account.
  The Bill does not address the question that has been raised on both sides of the House about how we will ensure that we have enough GPs for the next generation. I cannot express strongly enough that, unless we make general practice far more attractive, many parts of the country will be short of GPs just as they are short of NHS dentists now. It is a very serious issue indeed. Given that medicine generally for doctors will move away from being as acute based towards being more community-based and primary-care led, which I support, we must ensure that we recruit enough GPs.
  I agree with advice that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the other two hon. Members who serve on the General Medical Council—the hon. Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell)—and I have received. We should amend the Bill—I hope that the Government will—to allow pre-registration training to take place in private practice premises.
  There is very good practice around. My local medical and dental school, the United medical and dental school just over Lambeth bridge, has a department of general practice, and is developing ways in which to provide

  175
  training for GPs in general practice. We need to go down that road. We must ensure that the Government give high priority to GP training and the effort to bring GPs into the profession. We are short of nurses and specialists in some places and short of community nurses, but we are really short of GPs. We may have to do something about ensuring that we pay them adequate student grants to ensure that they enter general practice rather than hospital medicine.
  The Bill does not deal with several important funding issues. The first, about which there is huge concern, has remained the subject of no comment at all so far. My colleagues and I believe that the greatest inequity in the organisation of funding for individuals in the health service is the fact that general practice is funded differently—depending on whether one is a fundholding GP or not. Until doctors are funded on a similar per capita basis for each patient, the funding system for general practice will be unfair.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am following closely the hon. Gentleman's argument. Can he, however, tell me how it is possible to base a population-needs funding assessment on a single GP practice? That is surely not possible. It is possible at locality level, however, where several GP practices are grouped together.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand the question. I think that funding on such a basis is possible. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman after the debate about that. Fair funding would mean that, no matter how one organised one's practice, one would be paid pro rata according to the number of patients one treated. Such a basis does not differ according to whether one is talking about a single-handed practice, a six-partner practice or a collection of practices. The criterion for me is the same.
  Secondly, we must have a fair funding system for hospital and local community health services. We have a capitation system and weighted capitation, which adds in criteria for deprivation, morbidity, mortality, ethnicity and so on, but we do not weight everything. The reality is that the system is still unfair. The Government are moving towards a fairer system, but until we weight the funding to take account of the needs of the community, more deprived areas will be at a disadvantage. Parts of my constituency, as well as those many others such as the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury, for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) are deprived. All health service funding should be needs-based. That we have not yet established.
  Thirdly, the Bill does not address the fact that, as is my party's view, GPs should be paid for their core services and additionally paid if they do other things. We need to ensure that that happens not only in theory but in practice.
  Fourthly, as I said, I hope that we can write into the Bill that everybody in the NHS can be part of the NHS pension scheme, and therefore avoid the anomaly that people who worked for a GP who worked for the health service could not have pensions funded. That needs to be corrected.
  The Bill does not address a set of issues about charges. It is inequitable and conducive to bad health to go on raising money from charging certain people for certain NHS services. I know that there is dispute about this. The Government have not accepted my view. I remind them that not only is my party committed to abolishing charges
  176
  for eye and dental checks: the Royal National Institute for the Blind in its briefing for today's debate makes the point clearly when it says:
  "An eye test is an essential part of any prevention strategy being not simply a sight test but also an eye health check".
  It says that eye tests help to prevent blindness, and I entirely support its call on the Government
  "as a matter of urgency to extend the exemption categories for free eye tests to include those aged 60 and over".
  It says that it would seek ways in which to use the Bill to achieve that.
  I ask the Government in Committee or on Report to accept that there should be free eye and dental checks, as well as accepting the principle that, in future, we must review all other charging again—not just for tests but, for example, for glasses. A woman came up to me this morning in my constituency and said "Simon, I am having to pay a huge amount for glasses"—not for lenses, but for glasses—"which goes beyond what I can afford." The whole system of prescription charges and charges for services needs comprehensively reviewing. It needs to be simplified, and we need to avoid pensioners having to fill in a 17-page form for exemption from such services.
  I am slightly confused about the role, as enunciated by the Secretary of State, that is envisaged in the Bill for the Medical Practices Committee. My understanding is that the MPC is meant to ensure generally that we have enough manpower. Although it will be consulted, there is a danger of the provision of services becoming divorced from adequate strategic planning.
  The health service suffers badly from the lack of strategic planning. I know that the Minister will say that there are regional outposts of regional chairman—chairing nobody—but my party's view is that at almost no additional public cost we could have democratically elected regional health authorities in England and the same sort of bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Such bodies could be responsible for strategic planning and take advice from and be governed by a body such as the MPC.
  Regulation needs to be strengthened. I argued yesterday for an inspectorate to ensure that hospital doctors, nurses, practices and super-surgeries are doing their jobs properly. It could be the umbrella organisation under which bodies such as the Mental Health Commission operate. We also need to ensure that we regulate the professions well.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made a point that I was going to make about people who are currently completely outside the regulatory system. On a recent Radio 5 programme compiled by somebody I know called Ed Hall, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I were asked for our comments about bogus paramedics, bogus ambulance personnel, and so on. This is a scandal, and we should deal with it. There are still many unregulated people around the peripheries of the health service, and there is no excuse for that. They could risk lives and, indeed, cause lives to be lost. We should ensure that the people who carry out primary health care are authorised, professionally competent and certified as able to do the work.
  Finally, if we are to ensure that doctors are true to their Hippocratic oath and to themselves, and that they are free agents for the health service, we must ensure that they are not able to be bought, as it were, by other interests. The Secretary of State was helpful in saying that in future all

  177
  the people who contract, for the purpose of the pilot schemes, will have to be in the NHS family. I accept that. I strongly share the view—and I have received representations on this—that it would therefore be quite wrong for acute hospital trusts to employ GPs. These trusts should not be empire building—they have plenty to do in running their present services. I hope that the Bill will be amended to make it clear that, at most, only community trusts or those with community purposes might be able to employ GPs. I hope that we can reach agreement on that.
  If we are to be absolutely sure that a coach and horses cannot be driven through the theoretical provision that contractors with the NHS will be members of the NHS family, there has to be the same openness—or better—for people in the health service that we in this place are now required to have. All contracts with GPs need to be in the public domain so that I, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and all our colleagues, but above all the public, know exactly with whom the GPs in each constituency have contracts and for what services.
  I am absolutely in favour of having GPs in my local shopping centre at Surrey Quays. That is fine. I have no problem with that. I have no problem about having GPs in the Elephant and Castle shopping centre or at Victoria station. I am very keen that they should be where the people are. I have never been to Lakeside, that great shopping centre in Essex where everybody goes, which is the largest in the country, although my brother and his wife go there quite often. If thousands of people do all their shopping there, it should have GP surgeries. That is fine, but we have to know that they are independent, free-standing surgeries of GPs who are not dancing to the tune of a supermarket, a drugs company or a load of international arms dealers. How can we know? There has to be a register that every member of the public, every patient, every Member of the House of Commons can look at. That independence must be established at the core of the Bill.
  We are moving towards a health service that will have much less conventional practice. We need to take it out into the public, just as the best public health in the early part of the century was taken out to the public in the streets, on the beaches, in the fairgrounds, and so on. At the same time, we need to ensure that people understand that the person with whom they are dealing is an NHS contractor.
  Above the optician, the dentist, the doctor, the physiotherapist and the clinic should be a sign in bold letters to say that this is somebody who works for the NHS. The great guarantee in our health service has to be that the practitioner is under independent scrutiny, acting professionally for the public health service, and regulated by the public health service in the interests of the public. If we do that, primary health care has a great future, but, if we allow it to be subsumed and captured by private interest, principally for private gain and profit, the public service will be put second and the patient will certainly be put second as a result.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a comment that I thought particularly interesting. Having
  178
  talked about the history of the health service, he said that we must continue to build on that great record. It is a shame that he did not go on to say that two thirds of the history of the health service has been under Conservative Governments. It is sad that we are so often told that we have run down the health service, when the great institution that we are talking about today, which we seek to improve further for the millennium and into the next century, has been created under Conservative policies and backed by Conservative spending plans. We are, however, at one in our desire to see that its great record is built on for the future.
  The main reason why we are here today is to look at how to build on the success of the health service and at how we can take it forward to meet the health needs of the country into the next century. Since the Conservative Government came to power, spending on the health service has gone up by 74 per cent.—by almost three quarters. Whereas we are now spending £724 each year on the health service for every man, woman and child, 18 years ago the sum was just £444 in real terms.
  There has been an incredible increase in the money that has been put into the health service, and I think that we all agree that that is right. That is why Conservatives so much welcome the Prime Minister's pledge that throughout the term of the next Parliament, for each of those five years, a Conservative Government will increase investment in the health service in real terms. It is unfortunate that the Opposition parties, which make great play of their commitment to the health service, are not willing to repeat that commitment—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats are.
  Mr. Hendry: Certainly the minority Opposition party is, but it is willing to commit to spend money on absolutely everything. It is a shame that the Labour party has not been willing to repeat that commitment and show its commitment to the future funding of the health service.
  Our policies have enabled us to improve the service as it is delivered in doctors' surgeries and hospitals throughout the country. There are 55,000 more nurses than there were 18 years ago, and there are 22,500 more doctors and dentists—including 3,500 more NHS dentists, which is often overlooked—than when the Government came to power in 1979. There has also been a significant onslaught to reduce the weight of administration, accepting that there has to be good administration but recognising that it should not be at the cost of patient care.
  On average, there is now one senior manager to 77 other members of staff working in medical provision in the health service. That ratio is very low and it should be recognised as such. It is unfortunate that the Opposition seek to make cheap points out of that and undermine the good and important work that is done by a very able team of administrators in our health service.
  It is also a fact that, over the past 10 years, some 750 schemes costing more than £1 million each have been completed. That is more than one a week, and it is testimony to our determination to continue to create an improvement in the physical presence of the health service in our communities by improving buildings and building new hospitals to meet future needs.
  We have seen a dramatic drop in waiting lists. In 1987, 200,000 people were waiting more than a year for treatment on the health service. That has now dropped to

  179
  just 15,000. That is a fantastic testimony to those who work in our health service. They deserve our credit and thanks for what they have done. It is also true that half of those who need hospital treatment are seen at once. Half of the remainder are seen in five weeks. Only a minute fraction wait for 12 months or more. The reality is that we are now treating some 4 million patients a year more than in 1979, and we are treating 2,250,000 more than in 1991 when the health service reforms started.
  We should remind ourselves of the words of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). It was he who said that the acid test of health service reforms would be whether they treated more patients. I notice that the shadow spokesman on health tried earlier to dismiss the words of the right hon. Member for Livingston, because if they were made by his predecessor by four they were of no relevance. We should go back to those words. If the acid test is whether the reforms will treat more people, we are now treating 2,250,000 more patients than when the reforms were started.
  Ms Tessa Jowell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is extremely difficult to know whether the NHS is treating more patients, because, under the Conservative Government, the NHS counts not patients but "finished consultant episodes"?
  Mr. Hendry: The reality is that under the last Labour Government we had no idea whatever of the level of activity, because the figures were not collated. We did not know how much operations or drugs cost, because Labour did not believe in measuring such costs. It is only because of the measures put in place by the Government that we can make such comparisons and realise that we are making improvements in the number of patients being treated.
  I accept what the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) is trying to get at, but the reality is that we are treating more patients, treating them faster, and bringing down waiting lists; and we have almost completely done away with waiting lists of 12 months or more.
  The issue of fundholding is at the core of the debate. By April this year, 60 per cent. of the country will be covered by fundholders. That is disappointing in a way; it represents significant strides, but in my constituency more than 90 per cent. of patients are covered by fundholders. Because that percentage is so high, the benefits that fundholders have achieved for their patients have been enjoyed by all members of the community, regardless of whether they are personally covered by a fundholder.
  I want to take the House on a tour of some of the new facilities in my constituency, to bring home how the changes have benefited us. In Glossop, in the very north of my constituency, the Manor House surgery run by Dr. Oldham and his colleagues has been transformed. It has developed into one of the most outstanding doctors' practices anywhere, and was recently voted the fundholding practice of the year.
  All the doctors' practices in High Peak are breaking new ground and providing better services. In New Mills, a town of almost 10,000 people, Dr. Williams and his colleagues have developed a stunning new surgery, one of the most modern and elegant that I have seen. Patients
  180
  feel that they are being treated like human beings, with respect and dignity; they feel that they are getting the best possible treatment, because they are not in shabby and rundown surroundings.
  The same doctors' practice has opened a new surgery in Hayfield, which did not previously have a surgery, providing better facilities for people in small villages. In Chapel-en-le-Frith two new surgeries have been constructed: one by Dr. Bartholomew and his colleagues, and one by Dr. Oliver and hers. Dr. Bartholomew has also built a new surgery in Whaley Bridge. Those doctors are extending and improving the facilities that they offer and delivering better health care.
  In Hope, Dr. Moseley and his colleagues have built a new practice; and there are new premises in Buxton. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is on the Front Bench today, I should mention the facility at Eyam, which is in his constituency but serves some of my constituents. Right across the area there has been new investment in better surgeries, run by a team of young, dynamic, go-ahead general practitioners who are determined to make fundholding work and who want to build on the success of our health service with the best-equipped surgeries that the country has ever known.
  Last September, I brought the Prime Minister to my constituency and took him to one of those doctors' surgeries. The day did not start off terribly well: I asked some of the people standing outside the surgery, who had clearly seen that something was going on, why they had turned up. They said that they had been looking out of their window and, seeing all the police cars converging on the surgery, had come down because they thought that a drugs raid must be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Bill. He has certainly not done that for the past couple of minutes.
  Mr. Hendry: My comments, with great respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are designed to show how fundholding is benefiting our patients and our constituents and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman knew my antecedents in relation to general practice, he would not need to make that remark.
  Mr. Hendry: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill, which is so important, seeks to build on what has been achieved. We have a tremendous amount to be proud of. Like other hon. Members, I have consulted general practitioners in my area about the way in which they want matters to proceed. They recognise the progress that has been made and that it would not have been possible without the changes introduced by the Government; but they also recognise the need to take matters further in the future.
  Practitioners talk about how they have developed new services, such as a drugs cabinet in the hospital at Tameside; the unused drugs of patients being discharged are placed in the cabinet to be re-used, rather than being wasted as they were before.

  181
  There is a tremendous list of new facilities; my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) referred to some in his constituency, and it is the same in mine: today, we have audiology in Glossop; direct listing of gynaecology services; new dermatology teach-ins; an additional district nurse; physiotherapy and occupational health services; direct links with the pathology laboratory; complementary therapy, such as Alexander treatment and acupuncture; new chiropody services; and something called sigmoidoscopy, about which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, probably know more than I do—it does not sound awfully nice.
  Through fundholding, general practitioners have been able to bring down the waiting lists for everybody in the community—not only for fundholders' patients, but for all who use the services. Previously, the wait for dermatology was two years; now it is only four weeks. For gynaecology it was up to 20 weeks; now it is only four. For ear, nose and throat treatment, it has been reduced again, from 20 weeks to four. The average waiting time for in-patient treatment has been brought down from 18 months to 3.7 months.
  That does not apply only in the large practices; progress has been made in small practices, too. Dr. Cox, who runs a surgery in Tideswell, says:
  "In our case we now have numerous outreach clinics involving consultants from Sheffield and Chesterfield. Thus our patients are saved long journeys and waiting lists are greatly reduced.
  In addition, we have introduced physiotherapy, dietetics and recently Citizens advice into our surgery. We may have introduced these services in time but there is no doubt that the internal market has empowered fundholders and providers now listen with an open ear."
  I hope that the Bill will build upon such changes. We must address the concerns that exist and recognise that some improvements need to be made. I have concerns about the way in which doctors' practices sometimes work in relation to the district health authority, when it appears that their budgets are easy pickings. I am concerned that North Derbyshire health authority, having top-sliced 5 per cent. off its budgets last year, is planning to do the same again this year.
  For a relatively small surgery, that could mean a reduction of £40,000 in one year. I hope that the Minister will bear such practices in mind and reassure the House that he will try to ensure that they have security in their budgeting plans for the future.
  We need to reconsider the efficiency index, whereby GPs are expected to improve their levels of activity by 2.75 per cent. each year. They are well able to meet that: one GP's practice in my constituency was able to increase its efficiency by more than 34 per cent. in one year alone. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will examine the ratio set by the Department of Health, whereby one episode in secondary care equates to 54 in primary care. I think that he would accept that that represents a big disincentive to health authorities to reconfigure their services, and that it should be reassessed.
  I am concerned also about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims), who spoke about the recruitment of new GPs. There appears to be evidence that we are finding it difficult in many parts of the country, and especially in inner cities, to recruit new people to general practice.
  182
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how the problem can be tackled head on. I thank him for his help, on a visit to my constituency a year or 18 months or so ago, in the matter of out-of-hours support. He directly addressed the concerns of GPs and enabled a formula to be found whereby their needs, in a generally rural area, could be met. It is clear, however, from other GPs' practices, that they have not all been able to find solutions, and I hope that we will continue to examine the matter to ensure that we can deal with it effectively and for all.
  The key point regarding all such concerns is that the Government are addressing them; they know that they exist and they are seeking to build on what has been done, to make the health service better for the future.
  The core of the Bill—this is why I support it so strongly—is that it reflects patients' wishes and recognises that GPs know what is best for their patients. They know that patients would like to be treated closer to home if that is possible. They know that patients would be happy for their GPs to carry out minor surgery, if that is possible. The principle is that, where appropriate, care should be carried out at primary, not secondary, level. That is important in a constituency such as mine. Many of my constituents are referred to general hospitals some miles away in the big cities. They may have to go to Tameside, Stockport, Manchester, Macclesfield, Sheffield or Chesterfield because they come from a spread-out rural area. The more that we can enable things to be done in people's localities, the better it is for us all.
  We should give GPs the opportunity to advance the pilot projects that they believe are possible because they know better than we ever could—and better than health authorities or any elected body, whatever the Liberal Democrats may suppose—what is possible. They have the vision to make it happen. It is vital that we impose as few restrictions as possible on what can be done. We need to encourage GPs to think widely. That is why I read the Opposition's reasoned amendment with sadness. It states that the Bill
  "fails to require health authorities to consult with patients and professional groups on pilot projects before submitting proposals to the Secretary of State".
  I do not believe that that should be a requirement, because it is GPs who are most trusted.
  If people were told by their GPs that they were going develop our health service in a certain way, people would trust them; there is no one people trust more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said, if GPs are happy, so are my constituents. That is because the trust is so great. To build in an unnecessary level of consultation with people who do not know as much about the issues, who might be worried about change and will not be readily reassured by GPs would be a mistake. GPs should have the ability to work up their pilot schemes and have them taken to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman referred to the reasoned amendment. The Minister will no doubt deal with this later, but unless I misunderstand, under clause 2(5), there must be consultation about pilot schemes before they are submitted. I think that that is important. The hon. Gentleman will have to persuade his colleagues as well as the Opposition if he wants to remove

  183
  consultation. I urge him to think again. Involving patients and the public in decisions is a hugely important way of developing primary care.
  Mr. Hendry: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I was quoting from the reasoned amendment one of the Opposition's reasons for objecting to the Bill.
  One can push consultation too far and stifle enthusiasm so that GPs do not go ahead with some of their more exciting and dramatic ideas because they lack general support. It would be a tragedy if such enthusiasm were stifled because of the consultation process.
  It is also unfortunate that the reasoned amendment states that the Bill
  "fails to establish criteria by which the success of pilot projects can be evaluated".
  I do not understand how that can be done in advance. If we say that GPs should be encouraged to produce ideas for pilots and think widely, we cannot now establish the criteria for all circumstances because we do not know what the pilots will be. It is in the light of the proposals that are made that we will best be able to judge how the pilots should be evaluated.
  Four key principles that underlie the Bill should be put on record. Patients must continue to have the right to be registered with a GP. A disadvantage of some overseas systems is the lack of registration with a particular GP. Such systems involve additional bureaucracy and mean that records cannot be so readily brought to hand.
  Concern has been expressed about the involvement of GPs within shopping centres. I do not believe that people trundling a shopping trolley round Tesco would want to visit a GP by going through a little door between the frozen peas and the band-aids. If I were shopping in Tesco and there was something wrong with me, the last thing that I would want is for my constituents to see me popping in to see the GP there. Many people would feel like that. That is why some of the more extravagant schemes dreamed up by the Opposition would not be put forward. GPs may wish to open centres where people are at work, in stations and in shopping centres but they would be wary of being brought under the direct control of a supermarket or similar organisation.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to reinforce an important point which was implicit in what the hon. Gentleman said. There are many services that it is hugely important to keep confidential, such as family planning and sex advice to young people. In such cases, people would not want to be seen popping in to see GPs in a supermarket. A range of things will be needed. For well women or well men services, or blood pressure checks, the nearer the service is to where hundreds of people shop, the better. No one would be embarrassed by such check-ups.
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We must remember that the people who will be pushing the schemes and developing the ideas are those who are most sensitive to patients' needs: the GPs. The more extravagant schemes would not be put forward.
  I said that there were four principles. The second is that legislation should ensure that there are national safeguards for both practitioners and patients. Thirdly, there must be public accountability for the use of funds. Fourthly—this is vital—if pilots are unsuccessful, it must be possible to
  184
  revert to the previous arrangement. If a pilot scheme did not work and GPs could not go back to their earlier arrangements, many GPs would be reluctant to try the scheme.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us, here or in Committee, that pilot schemes can be worked up free from the stifling intervention of health authorities that do not like the proposals. Clause 2(2) states:
  "Subject to any directions given to them by the Secretary of State, an authority must—

  (a) prepare proposals for a pilot scheme, and

  (b) submit them to the Secretary of State,

  if asked to do so by a qualified person who wishes to provide piloted services."
  Clause 2(3) states:
  "A request to an authority under subsection (2) must—

  (a) be made in writing; and,

  (b) comply with such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed."

  I hear a little alarm bell in respect of what may be prescribed under the final section about what requirements may be set down.
  I am concerned that it should not be possible for a health authority to stifle go-ahead, dynamic GPs who have ideas that are not entirely in keeping with those of the health authority. Even if health authorities do not believe that such ideas are the best way forward, I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to bear in mind the fact that there should be a wide cross-section of projects so that the best proposals can be developed.
  Mr. Bayley: Inevitably, there are good and bad general practitioners and practices. That is recognised by the provision in the Bill that a GP does not automatically have to be appointed if he is deemed to be unsuitable. If a health authority is not to sort out the good pilot projects put up by GPs from the bad, who will?
  Mr. Hendry: There are different grounds whereby a health authority may raise concerns. If an authority says that a GP is an alcoholic or has something fundamentally wrong with him, that would be relevant and should be taken into account. But the fact that a pilot scheme proposes something that is not immediately in tune with what the health authority thinks is the way forward should not rule it out. If the health authority is to be directly involved, there needs to be a right of appeal directly to the Secretary of State, so that good, exciting and innovative projects are not knocked on the head early in the consultation process.
  I hope that the Bill receives cross-party support. It is encouraging that Labour is, lately, agreeing that fundholding has been beneficial, but its proposals for locality-based commissioning are not what fundholding or non-fundholding doctors want. In my constituency, GP fundholders can cover between 3,000 and 10,000 people. To suggest that GPs should cover areas of between 50,000 to 150,000 people is to be out of touch.
  It is strange to hear Labour talking as if pilots were its idea and that there should have been pilots when fundholding was introduced. I was working at the Department of Health as a special adviser at that time, and we knew why Labour wanted pilot schemes—it wanted to kill off the idea of fundholding at birth. Labour did not

  185
  want the system to have time to grow, and it wanted to make sure that the system moved at a snail's pace so it would not be a success.
  This important Bill shows the way forward, and will lead to a better NHS that will serve patients better. The Bill will prepare the health service for the challenges of the next century. Above all, it shows that the Government are listening to GPs, because they know what is best for their communities and for their patients, and they will work to find an exciting future. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I should like to start by responding to one of the arguments made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). He sought to convince the House that the Opposition parties argued for pilot studies rather than for a leap in the dark at the time of the "Working for Patients" reforms, because we wanted to frustrate their implementation. He said that that was perfectly clear to him when he worked at the Department of Health. I suggest that that shows how out of touch those involved in developing the project in government were with the mood within the health service.
  At the time, I was working in a university as a health economist on contract to health authorities, and people in the health service and academic commentators said time and again that it was necessary to set clear standards, to evaluate whether the health reforms were both effective in terms of improving patient care and cost-effective. Those in government who were driving the "Working for Patients" project stood in the way of evaluation because they felt that it might reveal that the proposed reforms were not in the best interests of patients. The same lobby of NHS staff and commentators had argued for years that there should be a thorough and independent analysis of the benefits, as well as the disadvantages, of GP fundholding. The Government resisted that.
  Finally, the Audit Commission carried out such an assessment in a report—I understand that the Department of Health used every trick in the book to try to persuade it not to undertake it. Yet last year the report was published, and what did it find? It found that some benefits had come from fundholding, and some costs. It quantified the benefits and costs, and found that benefits for patients worth £202 million had been achieved at a cost to the NHS of £236 million. In other words, the benefits were less than the costs.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman make it plain whether those costs were one-off and whether the benefits were annual? Is he comparing like with like?
  Mr. Bayley: That is a good point. The report looked at the cumulative costs and benefits of the fundholding scheme. One could certainly re-examine the system were it to continue for another five years, but that is unlikely—even if there is no change in Government. The Bill demonstrates to the House and to the country that fundholding has not been the panacea that it was originally supposed to be, and that it is not enough to ensure that high-quality primary health care is provided for everybody. But if fundholding were to continue, we could review it.
  186
  It is important to draw on the independent analysis, to pick out the benefits that have come from fundholding and to retain them, while chucking into the dustbin of NHS history the disadvantages—the inequity, the creation of a two-tier system and the high administrative costs of running purchasing on a practice-by-practice basis.
  Primary care is the jewel in the crown of the NHS. It is what enables us to achieve a relatively high health status for the population at a lower cost than any other advanced industrial country. That was brought home to me vividly after the previous election, when I visited Washington DC. I visited a number of private and public—in US terms, state-funded—hospitals, one of which was the notorious DC general hospital, a public hospital dealing with patients who did not have the money or the insurance cover to go for private care. In some ways, I was surprised by what I saw, because it looked very much like a workaday NHS district general hospital. The level and quality of care seemed similar. It was not as plush as the private hospitals, but it provided a high quality of clinical care.
  The difference between the United States system and the United Kingdom system was brought home to me starkly when I was shown the maternity ward. I was staggered that the majority of patients in the ward—who had given birth a day or two before—had received no antenatal care whatever. They had simply gone into labour and gone to the public hospital. Inevitably, that results in the United States having higher perinatal and infant mortality rates, despite spending more than twice as much of its national wealth on health care as we do. We have achieved more with the primary-care-supported NHS than the US has been able to achieve.
  It was equally shocking and surprising that the only patients discharged from that maternity ward with any post-natal health care provided by the public system were mothers who were deemed to be "at risk". "At risk mothers" in Washington DC fell largely into two categories—homeless parents and drug addict parents. Almost by definition, those two groups, although entitled to post-natal health services, would not get them because nobody could trace where they had gone following their discharge.
  When the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) opened the debate, it was clear that—although there are some sharp differences between the two main parties—there is substantial agreement on much in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I support the measures that seek to improve the distribution and quality of primary health care services.
  I ask the House to consider this: we all talk and have done for a number of years about the importance of a primary-care-led national health service, but we need to be clear what we mean by that. We need to be clear about who does the leading—is it GPs or is it nurses? Who, in primary care, are the leaders? By what means do they lead? Do they lead solely by placing contracts and by controlling the money for primary and secondary care, or by using the research base of effective innovation and clinical practice? Above all, where are they leading the NHS?
  The Government have a national health strategy—"The Health of the Nation" strategy—which specifies goals towards which they want the NHS and public policy in

  187
  general to lead the nation. In this debate and in subsequent debates in Committee, we need to establish whether the Bill will give the Secretary of State—whoever occupies that position in future—the power to ensure that the leaders of the NHS in primary care are leading towards goals that he or she, as Secretary of State, and the House, as guardian of public resources, want achieved. There must be a line of accountability for primary care.
  It has been said for many years that there is a striking inequality in the distribution of resources for primary care. Some months ago, I asked the Library to check in respect of each health authority how many GPs were provided in relation to the population served. The figures range from one GP for every 1,661 patients in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority area and one for every 1,702 patients in the Isle of Wight to, at the other extreme, one GP for 2,218 in Wigan and one for 2,253 in Rotherham. In other words, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight get substantially more GPs per patient than Wigan or Rotherham, so GPs in Cornwall have substantially more time per patient and more time per consultation.
  Mr. David Faber indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bayley: I can see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—he or any other hon. Member is welcome to intervene, but those are the figures prepared by the Library, whose staff will dig out the same information for him if he wants it. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what he is saying, but he should either get up and contribute to the debate or keep quiet.
  In my intervention on the Secretary of State's speech, I made it clear that I welcome the fact that the cash limits exposition booklet, which sets out for next year the basis on which the Government intend to fund the NHS for both secondary and primary care, will start to redistribute resources for primary care more equitably around the country. The effect, over time, may be that the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority, as a result of Government policy, gets relatively fewer GPs per head of population and that Wigan and Rotherham get relatively more. I was, however, pleased to hear the Secretary of State's commitment that there would be no cut in absolute terms to GP provision in any part of the country and that growth money should be used to iron out the inequalities.
  In October 1995, the Centre for Health Economics at the university of York produced a report on the issue of equity in primary care. It concluded that the allocation of funding and the distribution of the work force in primary care is extremely unequal in England and suggested that the Government should introduce an allocation based on the population served and its health needs. The centre estimated at that time—some two years ago—that, if resources were allocated according to population and need, the North West region would receive 447 additional GPs and the Northern and Yorkshire region would receive 311, while the South and West region had, according to the centre's calculations, 356 more GPs than its fair allocation.
  In May 1996, a private sector company, North-West Surveys and Research, produced a similar piece of work, which estimated that an equitable distribution of resources for primary care would shift 700 GPs from the area south of a line drawn between the Wash and the Severn to the
  188
  area north of that line. However, I stress that it is a question not only of shifting resources from north to south, but of shifting resources within health authorities and regions in the south and north, so that the provision of primary health care in every locality and community meets the needs of the population.
  The introduction of a needs-based allocation for primary care is, as I said, a welcome development. The principle is right, although I believe that the methodology that the Government have adopted is wrong. The initial targets set for allocations in years to come in the cash limits exposition booklet produced for next year's allocations show that the historical allocation, which was based on demand for and utilisation of services in the past, reveals a sharp mismatch with need. For example, the two health regions with the poorest financial allocation in years past—indeed, next year as well, because they still lag behind and will not catch up in one year—are the two health regions with the highest score for "underprivileged area status" in the public health common data set; and the two best funded regions are the two with the lowest score for underprivilege.
  The figures also show that the two regions that are the most poorly funded for primary care have stillbirth rates that are higher than the national average; and the two regions that are best funded per head of population for primary care have a lower stillbirth rate than the national average. It is a case of those who have will receive more and those who have not will receive less.
  That has been the historical situation, but the Government have addressed the problem and have taken a small, but welcome, step in next year's allocation, to move towards an equitable distribution of resources. As I said, the principle is right, but the methodology is wrong—perhaps not entirely wrong, but wrong in significant respects. For example, the actual cash allocation next year for non-cash-limited general medical services per patient—or, to be strictly accurate, per resident—in the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority area is £21.49, which is the highest cash amount for any health authority; whereas the lowest cash amount for any health authority is in South Staffordshire, where residents receive £13.69 per head.
  One would think therefore that, when a needs-based allocation was introduced, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority, over time, would receive less per patient for primary care and that South Staffordshire health authority would get more. That assumption, however, could not be more wrong. Under the Government's needs-based allocation formula, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster, despite the fact that it already gets more per resident than any other health authority in the country, is deemed to be the most underfunded health authority in the country. When it finally reaches its target, it will receive, at current prices, £5.36 per patient on top of the £21 or so that it already receives-20 per cent. more in real terms—whereas South Staffordshire health authority, currently receiving the lowest funding per resident of any health authority, will receive only 92p per patient more.
  The principal reason for that anomaly—and it is an anomaly, which needs to be corrected—is the way in which the Government have applied what they call their market forces factor. The principle of reflecting wage costs in inner London and the south-east and the cost of premises in inner London and the south-east in the

  189
  funding formula is right, but I do not accept that the gearing—the amount of extra weighting—that Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster gets, which is 36 per cent. extra money under the market forces factor part of the formula, is appropriate to its needs. Its funding for primary care, already the highest of any health authority, will increase by a larger percentage than will the funding of any other health authority. The needs-based capitation formula for cash-limited general medical services should be revised to reflect need more sharply.
  I want to discuss not only the quantity of resources available for primary care, but the quality of primary care. The hon. Member for High Peak spoke about the importance of the NHS efficiency index, but the efficiency index measures the quantity of care provided, whereas we need instead a quality index—perhaps we should call it an effectiveness index. Little or nothing in the Bill will address the issue of clinical outcomes: the extent to which primary care treatments work—the extent to which they make patients better, or better able to live with a disease or the disability that they have.
  It is essential for us to develop measures to address issues that are being debated in the health service, such as skill mix—arguments about which clinical activities should appropriately be done by GPs and which by practice nurses. Should nurses prescribe? Should they do an initial screening and consult patients before patients see a doctor in general practice?
  There are arguments for and against, but we should take decisions on the basis of the clinical effectiveness of a nurse intervention or a GP intervention in similar situations. One will find that in some cases a nurse can provide as good a clinical outcome as a GP and, if that is the case, one should redraw the boundary and allow a nurse to undertake that primary care activity. However, we need evidence of the effect on the patient—of the clinical outcome.
  Most of the work on outcomes has been done in secondary care. In some ways, it is easier to do it there because, as doctors and other clinical workers in secondary care are direct employees of the NHS, one can to a limited extent require them to do clinical audit. That is much harder in primary care, where primary care practitioners are currently independent contractors, and it may become harder still if the job of providing primary care services and GP services as envisaged in the Bill is contracted out to private, commercial operations.
  Nine out of 10 consultations between doctor and patient take place within primary care, so we need a great deal more work on the effectiveness of those consultations, and we need to establish lines of accountability that will allow the NHS, which is buying the care, to ensure that high-quality care is provided by primary care clinicians.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. People in secondary care have not been compelled to audit their care outcomes—far from it. The royal colleges have of their own volition gone into the field very heavily. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that my father is involved in the biggest project: the confidential inquiry into perioperative death. That was a voluntary activity; it has been enormously successful.
  190
  The hon. Gentleman is now talking about how one measures outcomes in primary care. That will be much easier to do in future because, first, many more fundholding general practices are introducing information collection technology in the form of new computers, and secondly, the Government are funding several projects throughout the country, such as the one on Teesside, which are specifically aimed at measuring outcomes in primary care. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  Mr. Devlin:—that the problem will be solved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Devlin: I have finished.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have finished a while ago. He is fully aware, with his experience in the House, that interventions should be brief and to the point.
  Mr. Devlin: It was.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair did not think it was; otherwise it would not have intervened.
  Mr. Bayley: Although it is true that clinical audit has been driven by the royal colleges, the thing that made it take off was the fact that the NHS agreed to provide a certain proportion of paid clinical time—I believe a session a month—to enable it to happen. It was possible for the NHS to do that in relation to secondary care. It is much harder to do it in relation to primary care.
  Admittedly, as information technology becomes increasingly available in primary care, the capture of the data needed for a clinical audit will be easier, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that that has come about as a result of GP fundholding. It has come about as a result of Government investment in information technology in primary care. We need to ensure that that provision is made equally and fairly in all general practices, irrespective of status.
  I have received complaints from non-fundholding practices in my constituency not only that they are unable to obtain as much grant as is given to fundholders, but that they are unable to obtain support for the information technology that they need to improve and develop their clinical practice. That is wrong. The technology is needed in all practices.
  Technology used in different practices should be compatible, because data collected using incompatible systems are impossible to audit across the locality. To me at least, that emphasises the need to ensure that the NHS, albeit without heavy central direction, is driving forward the audit process in primary care. If it does not, dozens of different computer systems will be used among the various practices, and it will be impossible to assess the effect of clinical interventions across localities and from one health authority or region to another. We need to be able to do so if we are to drive up standards of clinical care.
  The amount of good, solid information about effective clinical practice in primary care is pretty small compared with secondary care. Through their NHS research and

  191
  development programme, the Government are supporting the centre for reviews and dissemination at the university of York. It has produced a number of clinical practice guidelines, only three of which relate to practice in primary care—the guidelines on cholesterol screening and on the prescription of anti-depressants, and the controversial guidelines on prostate cancer screening, which were published last week. Most of the guidance on good clinical practice relates to secondary care, and we need to develop a greater emphasis on evidence-based medicine in primary care.
  The Select Committee on Health, in its report on purchasing, recommended that GP fundholders should be required to submit a clinical practice plan to their health authority each year before receiving their budget. I am sad to say that that recommendation was rejected out of hand by the Government. The Labour party addressed the Select Committee's proposal in its policy on commissioning.
  I presume that the Bill, if enacted, will require quality thresholds and outcomes to be built into contracts for bought-in primary care services, otherwise the purchaser would be buying a pig in a poke. When a health authority is purchasing care from a secondary care provider, it establishes standards and quality thresholds in the contract. If that is to apply to contracted-in primary care services, the Government will have to develop mechanisms to ensure quality control. Such mechanisms should be applied throughout primary care, whether provided by traditional, non-fundholding practices, fundholding practices or the new contracted-in practices.
  I hope that the Minister will address that issue in winding up or later in Committee, and I hope that the Government will be able to give us some answers.
  7.1 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I especially like the Bill's flexibility and its imaginative approach to pilot schemes, which those at the sharp end of health care may wish to adopt. I am, as the House is possibly tired of hearing, fortunate in my constituency in having forward-looking GPs. In fact, I cannot think offhand of any aspect of health care in which Lancaster does not excel. I may be biased, but our new premises mean that it is getting better all the time. Many of my local GPs, who were among the first fundholders, have extended the services they offer their patients almost beyond belief. I am sure that they will be happy to introduce pilot schemes to extend their services still further, because that is especially important in a country area.
  Not all new ideas, which seem fine on paper or in the first flush of enthusiasm, will work in practice. One of the strengths of the Bill is that if a pilot scheme is not as good as first hoped, it can be terminated and the practice involved can return to the status quo without penalty or humiliation. That means that practices will be more willing to start pilot schemes than if they thought they could not get out of them.
  The elderly often look back longingly at the old cottage hospitals. Time lends enchantment, but they were delightful places. I vividly remember that we used to hold sewing bees for the hospitals and mend all the sheets. We put our hearts and souls into those hospitals, but nobody could pretend that they were high-tech. They were supported by the whole community, but they could not supply the sophisticated care that is now required.
  192
  The rapidly expanding health centres that are springing up all around the country are able to provide a range of services. They are, in effect, modern versions of the cottage hospital. The pilot schemes will enable health centres to extend the range of services that they provide, which is very important in an isolated rural area. The speed of the changes in the primary care sector is astonishing. Only a few years ago, it was unheard of for consultants to stray from their hospitals and leave the barrier of their entourages and consulting rooms. Now, many consultants attend doctors' surgeries, to the great benefit of patients. Again, that innovation is especially important in scattered areas where not everybody has a car. It is marvellous that people can go to their local health centres and be seen by a consultant; it also cuts waiting times.
  Another strength of the Bill is that the pilot schemes will not be able to drag on. They will be carefully assessed within a time limit of three years. Nothing is worse than a pilot scheme that drags on and on, with nobody knowing whether it is a success or when it will end.
  Not every area is as fortunate as mine. Inner cities still face severe problems. Sometimes I have to remind my constituents that the Government run services not only for Lancaster but for the whole country, and the Bill will provide for less fortunate areas. It will enable medical practices and community trusts to employ doctors in salaried posts. Many young single doctors may be willing—as a social service, to repay the training they have had and to do their duty by those less fortunate than themselves—to serve in a difficult inner-city area, but the need to invest in premises and to enter a long-term commitment to a partnership can be a frightening deterrent. Doctors who have worked for only four or five years may be able to fill a serious gap in areas that are now almost barren of doctors.
  The pilot projects may also push forward the boundaries of the care and advice that can be given by nurses and trained pharmacists. The way in which we use our pharmacists is a scandalous waste of talent and training. On the continent, pharmacists provide advice: they are almost as good as doctors and, in many ways, are better. That does not happen in this country and it must be very frustrating for highly trained pharmacists to spend so much of their lives just dishing out pills. They are capable of giving a wide range of advice and the pilot projects should take advantage of their expertise.
  The same applies to nurses. In the past two or three years the range of services that nurses can offer has gradually widened, sometimes unofficially. Again, pilot projects could extend that range still further. It is a waste of talent and enthusiasm if we train someone highly and then do not use them to the utmost. The Bill will help us to do that.
  7.8 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: I have spent the past 35 years in medical practice in inner-city west Belfast, so I have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon, especially to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett—Bowman). More and more people in the higher income brackets are turning to private medicine, whether we like it or not.
  If the Bill becomes law and eventually, by Order in Council, applies to Northern Ireland, the important question for me and for those I represent will be how it

  193
  applies to people in inner-city areas and to people who are deprived. We all remember the Black report a few years ago on inequalities in health care. It was an important report, but it was shelved. People refer to it from time to time, but it was not taken seriously by the Government at the time.
  I pay tribute to all those involved in primary health care. As every hon. Member accepts, it is a magnificent service provided by well trained people. The standard among general practitioners today is probably the highest in the history of medicine. I pay tribute to all members of the primary care team. Much has been said about community nurses. The Bill refers to nurse-led pilot schemes, and I would certainly support them.
  For years, nurses in the United States have played an important role. I accept what the hon. Member for Lancaster said about wasted talent, referring to nurses and pharmacists. They are highly trained people. In the United States, nurses have the authority to give out certain drugs. There is no reason why that should not apply in the United Kingdom.
  That is equally true of pharmacists. People in deprived and inner-city areas ask the pharmacist for advice, but that should be put on a proper footing. I know that the Bill deals with that.
  Social workers and health visitors are all worth their weight in gold. I want to say a special word about the psychiatric nurse. In the communities, the community psychiatrist plays an important role, but the pivotal role is played by the psychiatric nurse. That is the person to whom a GP would first refer a patient with a mental health problem, and later perhaps to the psychiatrist.
  No hon. Member has referred to the role of occupational therapists. If the Bill becomes law, its application in inner-city areas could give rise to a major problem in regard to occupational therapists and housing. The GP or the primary care team may be concerned about a patient with disabilities, but there may be a waiting list of six months or a year for recommended modifications to be made to the patient's home, such as the installation of a stair lift. I also find that what the patient wants, and what the occupational therapist and housing executive agree, sometimes differ widely.
  I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech. He spoke about the flexible approach to contracts. No one would disagree with that. I accept the general principle of pilot schemes. We are tied down by day-to-day work in general practice, but the biggest handicap for general medical practitioners is the increased administrative work that they have to do. They are trained to treat patients. I shall not go into the question of fundholders versus non-fundholders, but administration and administrative staff seem to be increasing, not decreasing.
  The Secretary of State spoke about the evaluation of pilot schemes, which is essential. There are many aspects to pilot schemes. Although I have studied the Bill carefully, there are many aspects that I do not fully comprehend. I appreciate that regulations will be issued after the Bill becomes law.
  The Secretary of State said that the Medical Practices Committee would be given a statutory right to be consulted. I hope that that will be meaningful consultation.
  194
  Many Opposition Members are concerned about commercialisation, and I share their concern. When we talk about flexibility, do we also mean privatisation? I would be worried about that.
  The question of health authorities employing a GP has been discussed. Earlier we heard reference to a hospital trust employing a GP. If that GP is a fundholder, a distinct conflict of interests could arise.
  When the time comes, I will judge the Bill in relation to inner-city and deprived areas. I hope that it will be amended to build in certain safeguards to protect the quality of primary care. Mention has been made of the quality of primary care, as opposed to the extent or the cost of the care. The quality of the care is important.
  The family doctor service must remain fully within the national health service, and not be open to direct or indirect privatisation. GPs will oppose provisions in the Bill that would allow private companies to be involved in running the family doctor service. GPs must be free to be advocates on behalf of their patients and to exercise independent clinical judgment. The Secretary of State, I think, quoted Dr. Bogle of the British Medical Association, who said that there must be no third party in the consulting room. No one would argue with that.
  I have read the Labour amendment with care and would accept its main points—that the Bill
  "fails to require health authorities to consult with patients and professional groups on pilot projects"
  and that it
  "fails to provide for nurses and other primary care professionals to participate fully in pilot projects".
  Reference was made earlier to pilot schemes and the single-handed doctor, and the quality of such a doctor. I would support that approach. We heard that, if an advertisement had been placed three times and no suitable candidate found, the post would be frozen. If a practice became available, perhaps because a single-handed doctor had died, the local authority would advertise for a doctor, but the committee might not think that the quality of an applicant was good enough, so that person would not be appointed. I point out that the practice size would dwindle day by day, as people went to other doctors. I have seen many examples of that. It is important that a proper doctor is appointed and that there are incentives for such a person to go into that area.
  I have some criticism of certain bodies—GPs are no more perfect than anyone else. In some cases, doctors from other practices sit on the committee and decide who should or should not be appointed to the single-handed practice. It might be in the interest of those doctors that no one was appointed, so that the patients would go on to other doctors' lists. The question of viability arises; the practice might simply disappear. I do not know the position in Great Britain, but that has happened many times in Northern Ireland. Many things happen in Northern Ireland, however.
  Independent monitoring schemes are important, as is the training of young doctors. I see the GPs of today as the best ever. I was a trainer myself in medical practice, and I had nothing but admiration for the young doctors who came into our health centre—extremely able young men and women. Standards are rising all the time. The problem is that as the administrative arrangements increase, doctors must spend more and more time on administration, and therefore less time with patients.

  195
  We can all pay tribute to paramedics, especially anyone who has been at the scene of a road traffic accident and seen the efficiency of paramedics in action. However, it must be said that some are not trained in such matters. It seems that, if anyone puts on a big coat with something written on the back to the effect that he is a paramedic, everyone steps aside to let him in. There must be protection for the public in that regard.
  The Government must consult every member of the primary care team—not just general practitioners, but nurses, social workers and health visitors or their representatives. I am not sure how the Government will do that, but it is obviously extremely important. I have read the British Medical Association briefing document for today's debate and, like that organisation, I would be concerned about the involvement of private companies in the running of the NHS family doctor service.
  The criteria for assessing the value of pilot schemes must be clearly defined. GPs working on pilot schemes should be represented through their recognised local medical committees. Such committees are statutory bodies, and therefore proper, full and meaningful consultation should take place with them. We have already referred to the fact that pilot schemes would be voluntary, so I shall not re-examine the issues involved.
  The question of salaried GPs has arisen many times over the years. Doctors have different views on the subject, but the Bill puts the case for salaried general practitioners. I mentioned the problem of replacing doctors in inner-city areas while patient numbers remain viable. In such circumstances, salaried positions might appeal to some doctors who would like to be freed from the administrative detail associated with running a business. Doctors are not trained in business, and many would like to concentrate solely on patient care. There is a role for a salaried service, but it should not be introduced across the board.
  I accept that funding is limited. The noble Baroness Thatcher said, "You can't solve every problem by throwing money at it." We accept that general point, but funding is very different for fundholders and non-fundholders. I am not sure that fundholding always benefits patients. I accept that many doctors opted for fundholding initially because they believed that it would serve their patients' best interests. However, I am unhappy about certain aspects of fundholding.
  I appreciate that the Bill deals with England, Scotland and Wales and does not apply to Northern Ireland. However, if it becomes law, it will be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council. Some doctors in Northern Ireland who applied to become fundholders were not accepted on financial grounds, although their practices were organised and fully computerised.
  Mr. Robathan: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. Having regard to his own experience as a GP in west Belfast, does he not think that improvements could be made? It is all very well to claim that fundholding has led to discrimination, but does he not think that we should make progress? Does he agree that fundholding has proved generally beneficial to practices that have selected that option, and that we should proceed
  196
  down that road rather than saying, "Fundholding is discriminatory and some practices are not doing so well"? We should encourage all practices to do better.
  Dr. Hendron: Fundholding will work only if all doctors become fundholders and if we have an equitable system for doctors and patients. I do not have the figures for fundholding and non-fundholding GPs in Northern Ireland. I did not agree with the principle of fundholding when it was introduced, but it is here to stay so there is no point arguing about the fundamentals. The system will work properly only if all doctors are fundholders—no one can deny that fact. In Belfast, the patients of fundholding GPs are often treated first while those of non-fundholders remain on the waiting list. That is wrong.
  I pay tribute to the Royal College of General Practitioners, which has played a major role in elevating general practice within the national health service in the past 20 years. Some 20 or 25 years ago, doctors used to make jokes about general practitioners. That does not occur any more, and the standard of general practice is very high. We have some difficulties encouraging doctors to train in that area, but that is an extremely complex problem that I cannot explore now.
  I am honoured to be a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners. It believes that standards of care must be maintained, that it is important to retain central elements of the existing system and that people must have universal free access to general practitioners. Continuity of care is a key point. In order to maintain quality of care, we should establish a proper process that will enable trusts and local health authorities to appoint GPs. Almost all general practitioners have completed vocational training satisfactorily—90 per cent. of practising doctors have passed the Royal College of General Practitioners examination. I support the Bill's general concepts, although I have expressed some serious reservations.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I apologise to the House for not being present for the beginning of the debate. My absence was due partly to my busy schedule and partly to the fact that I went to look at a school for my son, who is now nine weeks old. Like most people in their early or mid-forties, I have not had great experience of the national health service. However, I recently experienced its primary care services at first-hand with the birth of my son. I was extremely impressed, as was my wife—which is perhaps more important—with the service provided.
  My wife received excellent pre-natal care from her GP and from the hospital. During the delivery at St. Thomas's hospital—I shall briefly digress from primary care provision—two midwives, a doctor, a senior registrar, a paediatrician and an anaesthetist were present in the delivery room. I was proud to be known as a Conservative MP, just in case some of the staff were not particularly happy about it. However, I discovered later that one midwife had trained in Leicester at the time of the last election and had voted for me—which is a feather in my cap. My wife and son received excellent treatment, which was very reassuring.
  Dr. Tony Wright: Another victory for Labour.
  Mr. Robathan: No, it is not. Since the delivery, my wife has received post-natal care, and the standard of

  197
  NHS at-home care is also excellent. Initially, a midwife called every day, and now my son is seen by a GP or a health visitor every other week. A tremendous range of services are available—I think that my son is due to have his injections on Thursday—and the treatment is first-class.
  I cite that personal experience because it has given my wife and I great confidence in the NHS and in its primary care provision. Our experience counter-balances the stories that one reads from time to time—which usually appear in the cheaper press—claiming that NHS treatment is not good. Primary care—which I hope will benefit from the pilot schemes mentioned in the Bill—should aim to prevent disease and maintain health standards. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will refer to that point in his winding-up speech.
  Primary care is about general health and fitness. That is not to say that we want a nanny state to determine the fitness or health of every individual. The Evening Standard refers to an advertisement for eggs with runny egg yolks, and says that some people are already complaining about it because those are bad for us. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), those of us who like our egg yolks runny do not need the state to tell us, in the cause of prevention, that they are bad for us.
  I do not want a nanny state, but I would like a greater concentration on health and fitness promotion. Leicestershire health authority is to be congratulated on the information that it provides, even if it sometimes strays a little towards the nanny state.
  Being a 45-year-old male, and having had very little medical treatment during my life, I am a classic example of a person who does not often use primary care or the NHS until the age of 50. Apparently, from the age of 55 I will become a bit of a liability to my GP and to the health service as a whole. That is the usual pattern: if one is fortunate enough to be healthy, one does not use health care services until one is about 55.
  Mr. Richard Spring: My hon. Friend demeans himself, because he is one of the more energetic Members of the House. He is well known for riding his bicycle. I feel sure that the first time that he will have any real involvement with the NHS will be at the age of 65, rather than 55.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I rather hope that I will stay out of hospital altogether, as I sometimes feel shaky at the knees just walking into a hospital.
  We have seen the Government's White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", and we have seen the way in which local health authorities pursue preventive measures: it could be called health encouragement. My hon. Friend mentioned cycling. If children walked or cycled to school, they would remain healthier. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who was a general practitioner, would agree with me that we must encourage our children to be fit and healthy. The discouragement of competitive sport in school has made children less willing to take to the playing fields, but I am glad to see that the Department for Education and Employment is now putting that right.
  198
  Gyms are a flourishing commodity around London and elsewhere: there is one in the House of Commons, and one nearby, which I use. The use of gyms shows that people are concerned about their health. By staying healthy and fit, they reduce the burden on the NHS. I have seen reports that GPs may now be able to prescribe courses at gymnasiums for their unfit patients.
  Being healthy and fit starts at school. Health promotion in schools can be particularly useful, especially in primary schools. I went to a primary school in my constituency on Friday. I saw the lunches that the children were bringing from home instead of having the lunches provided by the school. They must have been just as expensive as the £1.15 that the school charges for lunch, but they contained food that was not the most healthy.
  Mrs. Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, was responsible for abolishing nutritional aspects of school meals?
  Mr. Robathan: I recall hearing the chant, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher" in the High street at Oxford when I was at university. Free milk in schools can still be obtained. I also remember that milk used to be delivered to our school.
  Mrs. Mahon: Milk is nutritional.
  Mr. Robathan: Yes. It was delivered to our school, but it was always tepid and no one drank it. Many of those third-pints of milk were taken away undrunk, because no one liked the stuff. The hon. Lady is right in that we should encourage a greater nutritional content in school meals. I think that we agree entirely on that.
  If health professionals and teachers develop an awareness in schoolchildren of the importance of eating the right food, and not just crisps and chocolate, less of a burden will be placed on primary health care.
  People in Leicestershire are concerned about air quality. Air quality in London, Leicester or wherever affects the number of asthmatics who go to their doctors or have to attend hospitals. We should examine this problem, and take a holistic approach to health care and prevention. If we could reduce the pollution in our cities, fewer children and others would go to their doctors. I am keen for some of the pilot schemes proposed in the Bill to work hand in hand with other agencies towards that end, and I hope that something along those lines will be discussed in Committee.
  Fundholding is growing in popularity. Doctors in Blaby have said to me that they do not like fundholding, but the next year they have decided to become fundholders because of the benefits, and the following year they have said that there are also benefits for their patients. As I said to the hon. Member for Belfast, West, that is how to make progress. We must ensure that the service is getting better, and that improvements are always being made.
  I recently went with my wife, who was then pregnant, to a fundholding surgery in Blaby. It was a bit of an emergency: my wife was concerned. We went there at short notice—we are not registered with that practice, because we are registered in London. We received excellent treatment. I say to those who knock fundholding practices, "What were things like 30 years ago? Indeed,

  199
  what were they like 18 years ago?" The treatment that one receives in a national health surgery is better than it was before, and one should think back before criticising and harping on about what may not always be perfect now.
  Two fundholding surgeries in my constituency—a health centre in Blaby and one in Countesthorpe—have recently installed ECG machines. The Blaby Lions organised sponsored walks to raise the money for those machines. I see no reason why local people should not help raise money for local health centres. I should pat myself on the back, because I took part in both sponsored walks, although I did not complete one of them.
  If we were to abolish GP fundholding, as some Opposition Members want—I am not sure about members of the Opposition Front Bench, who seem to vary slightly—what would we lose? What facilities would we lose? What freedom to employ additional staff and to use alternative treatments would we lose? From my limited personal experience, I think that we would lose a great deal.
  We should also consider the rising expectations of patients. Patients are no longer happy to put up with the grotty GP surgeries that they have perhaps had to put up with in the past. One may say that patient expectations are too high, but I do not agree. We should expect decent, well-run, clean surgeries, with the latest equipment if possible. We should be working towards achieving that where it does not exist.
  Patients must also take responsibility for their own primary health care. If a heavy smoker—this also relates to health promotion—is not given all the treatment that he wants, we should say to him, "Surely you too are responsible for your health, not just the doctor or the hospital. You are responsible for looking after yourself." Otherwise, we become a nanny state that says to people, "Whatever you do, we will look after you," and I do not think that that is right.
  I went to the casualty department at St. Thomas's hospital with my young son just before Christmas—treatment in casualty is primary health care. I was appalled by what the excellent staff of the hospital had to put up with on a Thursday evening before Christmas. It was quite shocking. I shall not be too rude about the people, except to say that they were drunks, layabouts and louts, and were being extremely rude to one another and to the staff. We should tell them that they are responsible for what happens to them, especially those who were dripping with blood, having fallen over in drunken stupors. As many doctors have pointed out to me, those are the same people who call doctors out in the middle of the night to say that they have a bit of a sore throat. We must make individuals more responsible for their own primary health care.
  Linked to that is the question of compensation. I hope that, in Committee, we shall consider giving more protection against vexatious litigation. Once, when someone fell ill, the standard cry would go up, "Is there a doctor in the house?" I fear that we are now approaching the situation that exists in America, where doctors pass by on the other side because they are frightened of being sued. That is dangerous: doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath, and are interested in the well-being of their fellow man, should not be subject to that fear.
  Leicester is fortunate in having three general hospitals—Leicester royal infirmary, Glenfield hospital and Leicester general hospital. All have good reputations,
  200
  and a great deal of money has been spent on them recently; but a project is now under way to establish whether it would be better to concentrate the care that they provide on two sites. I shall not comment on whether that would be desirable, because I am not a health professional. I shall say, however, that I think it right to allow the professionals who are most closely involved—surgeons, consultants, nurses and managers: those who must provide the care—a decent say. I regret to say that at least one Labour Member representing Leicester has said that that is wrong. We should view the position in its entirety, and consider what is best for the people of Leicester.
  While it has been increasingly difficult to obtain dental care on the NHS in the recent past, I am delighted to note that it now seems to be becoming easier. Not long ago I registered with an NHS dentist in Leicestershire, and, although it is true that one has to wait for a while for treatment, I commend the dentist who has treated me on several occasions. I suspect that the cost of crowning two teeth was relatively inexpensive. People say that NHS dentists are useless, but I was able to sign up with that dentist in an emergency, and he has given me excellent treatment.
  One provision in the Bill aims to reduce bureaucracy—I am sure that we would all welcome that—by unifying health budgets and making contracts easier. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, people have complained that the growth of GP fundholding and other reforms have led to an increase in paperwork. Part of that may have been necessary, but I think that we should consider carefully how we can reduce it to the minimum.
  I welcome the Bill. I believe that it is another step towards improving primary health care—and we all want the best primary health care for our constituents.
  7.43 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Although I support the amendment, I am not denying that there are good things in the Bill, such as the new rules for appointing GPs in single-handed practices, and the provision of salaried GPs. I am glad that community trusts will be able to employ GPs, although, like others who have spoken, I am very worried about the acute trusts. I fear that there could be a blurring of the purchaser-provider split, and even—as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) suggested—a conflict of interests in regard to GPs who might be employed as fundholders.
  The Secretary of State outlined some of the good aspects of pilot schemes—for instance, the fact that permanent arrangements will not be introduced unless they have been agreed by the Secretary of State. There must be proper assessment, but there is some doubt about who will carry it out. Participation is to be voluntary, but I wonder whether sweeteners will be offered in some instances. Participants must be given an assurance that they can return to current practice if the alternative does not prove satisfactory, and I welcome most of the proposed arrangements. I feel, however, that we need clarification in regard to who will be consulted.
  As I said to the Secretary of State in an intervention, past consultation has left some of us less than enamoured of the practice. I mentioned a recent consultation exercise relating to a 300-bed reduction. I do not know whether we shall ever get our new hospital in Halifax—which is

  201
  being built under the now infamous private finance initiative—but there has been plenty of consultation about it, and not a blind bit of notice has been taken of any of those who have been consulted. As the winter has gone on, it has become clear that we can hardly manage with the beds that we have now. I hope that the nurse-led pilot schemes will be allowed to continue; I should like to see much more detail in that regard.
  The Secretary of State said that primary care should be a friend to patients, but I think that the Bill fails on a number of counts. There are one or two missed opportunities. The question of commercialisation is, I believe, still there. The last link has not been fractured; it is still in the original proposals. It seems to me that the Secretary of State is pandering to the Tory right in his bid for the leadership, which may have clouded his judgment a little and led him into what is essentially another attempt—in at least one part of the Bill—to take more privatisation to the heart of the national health service.
  Let me say a little about GPs and the primary care system. Although that system is envied by most of the developed world, we should not overlook the fact that we are facing a crisis. That crisis is best summed up by the British Medical Association, which recently stated:
  "GP morale is at its lowest ebb for many years, caused by excessive workload, the continuing out of hours burden, too much bureaucracy and falling remuneration relative to comparable professions".
  Those are the BMA's words, not mine.
  I know—as do all other hon. Members, if they are honest with themselves—that that statement is true. Only last week, along with other Labour members of the parliamentary Yorkshire group—a fairly large group—I met doctors from the Yorkshire region. Dr. David Smith, a GP, told us that the GP service was in crisis. It was failing to recruit. Patients' expectations had been greatly raised by developments in treatments, but there had been a doubling in night work, and a massive transfer of work from secondary to primary care that had not been properly funded. Many people have overlooked that.
  Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady draw a distinction between the morale, as she puts it, of GPs who are in fundholding practices and that of GPs who are not? Following correspondence and conversations with GPs who have entered into fundholding arrangements, I have the clear impression that morale is very high. Those doctors are able to offer a range of services that their patients appreciate, and can raise quality by being able to send patients to the right hospitals for the right treatment. Labour's policies, if implemented, would remove that benefit.
  Mrs. Mahon: The opposite is true. Commissioning would allow all GPs to offer services without added bureaucracy and paperchases.
  Dr. Smith and his colleagues also confirmed what we already knew: that equity in care is not a reality. He told us that many GPs had overspent in the past two years keeping fundholding practices, that a two-tier system was developing and that the internal market in health had led to a paperchase. I have many local examples, but I want to refer to one involving Glenfield hospital. This example
  202
  might interest the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I have raised this matter before in the House with the Secretary of State.
  A constituent of mine who has been waiting 15 months for a heart bypass operation and who should have gone to Leeds general infirmary but cannot because it has stopped doing elective surgery, has been offered an operation at the Glenfield cardiac care unit in Leicester, but the letter states clearly that it has stopped doing elective surgery except for the patients of GP fundholders in Leicester, so here is a classic example of a two-tier system in his constituency. However, my constituent, who should be going to Leeds general infirmary, can go to Glenfield and jump in front of non-fundholders' patients, regardless of clinical urgency. It is not worst first; it is who can pay.
  Mr. Robathan: There is, of course, a question of funding. As I think the hon. Lady will understand, the whole NHS requires funding and is enormously expensive. I think that she will find that she is incorrect. I have not of course read the letter. There are three general hospitals in Leicester, all of which offer excellent care. I should say that Glenfield offers particularly good care in cardiac surgery because it has some of the latest, most expensive state-of-the-art technology that she will ever have seen.
  Mrs. Mahon: I checked this matter with the administrators, and it is absolutely true. I was looking after the interests of my constituent, and he can have the operation in weeks at Glenfield rather than waiting months for the operation to take place in Leeds.
  If the Bill is passed without amendment, the present two-tier system will continue. Patients will carry on being treated on the basis not of need, but of other factors: age, where they live, who their GP is and what status he has. Patients will come well down the list of priorities.
  The increase in the number of patients who are being struck off doctors' lists will continue, and that worries me. The Bill does not deal with that because the internal market has encouraged that increase. The trust between the doctor and the patient is threatened by the cash price factor in the internal market.
  In November 1995 I introduced a ten-minute Bill to deal with that very problem. I suggested what I consider were modest proposals. At some stage during the passage of this Bill, I intend to table an amendment to try to get the proposals in my Bill written into it. Patients should know at the very least why they have been struck off a doctor's list. Practices are becoming increasingly large. Before such a drastic step is taken, there should be discussion between doctors on whether another doctor can take the patient on board because being struck off has a devastating effect on people.
  I make it absolutely clear that the amendment that I hope to introduce is not a "doctor-bashing" amendment, but just a few weeks ago in Halifax I was contacted by an elderly lady, Mrs. Mary Walker, and her husband, who had used the same practice for 47 years. I spoke to her on the telephone and arranged to see her at a later date. She was incredibly distressed that she had been struck off her doctor's list. No reason was given, and of course a doctor does not have to say why. Obviously, the family health services authority got her another doctor, but she died before I could see her. Such cases happen over and over

  203
  again, so the Government need to deal with the matter. People should at least be told why they have been taken off or offered another doctor within the same practice, because having to travel outside their region can present major problems for elderly people and for women with young children.
  If I table that amendment, it will not be because I am anti-doctor. I have the highest regard for our GPs and the system. I also recognise that they have a legitimate right to say, "The relationship has broken down and I cannot treat this patient." Of course the General Medical Services Committee, in some advice a couple of years ago—which could be tightened up a little—pointed out that a patient may be struck off if there is violent or threatening behaviour towards a doctor or his family. As I have said, there could be a complete breakdown between doctor and patient. Scurrilous and unfounded allegations might be made against a doctor. There could be prescription fraud or the persistent breaking of appointments.
  All those things could happen, but the Bill misses the boat. If we are really talking about patients, the Bill could have included measures on that, but it does nothing to deal with the problem. Instead it deals with what I believe is the hidden agenda of the Conservatives: if, God forbid, they ever got in again, privatisation of the NHS would be top of their list. That trend is in the Bill. The Secretary of State has just slightly pulled back from what he was going to do, but a strong link remains and it still threatens one of the abiding strengths of British primary care, that the GP's role as "patient's champion" and "gatekeeper" to the NHS. That could be undermined with this commercialisation.
  That undermining of the doctor-patient relationship is destabilising and adds to the destabilisation that we have already seen with GP fundholding. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), who intervened to talk about GP fundholding, has now left the Chamber, but I should like to have drawn his attention to The Mail on Sunday, which showed the downside of GP fundholding. Its article stated:
  "Dr. Ian Dunn and his seven colleagues, who look after 16,000 patients in the area"—
  I think it is Long Eaton, Derbyshire—
  "became fundholding GPs—joining the scheme which has become the flagship of the Tory Party's NHS reforms. Theirs was one of the largest practices in the country to take over management of its own patient budget, in this case around £2.5 million a year.
  Now they have been thrown out"
  because the GPs have overspent their budget by £300,000. They did so because they did not want to stop patients from being treated. Therefore, there is an unravelling of that flagship.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Mahon: No. I am sorry. I must get on. Other hon. Members want to speak and the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber most of the night.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said, even though the Government have pulled back now and there has been a little bit of a withdrawal from the commercialisation that was envisaged in the first place in the White Paper and in the Bill, many companies have shown an interest in being
  204
  able to employ GPs. They include Asda, which has well-known links to the Tory party—I do not need to go over them again; they have been well expanded in the Chamber—UniChem, the United Kingdom's largest drug supplier, which has plans to build health centres and to employ GPs; and PPP Healthcare, which proposed a pilot scheme involving the provision of GP services at the company's private hospitals, with referrals to the hospitals.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who I hope votes with us tonight, said that he did not think that the location was important. It is important if it is in the same place as a private hospital and patients are referred straight there. Such hospitals do not train NHS staff. They are leeches on the back of the NHS, and the sooner we realise that, the better.
  The public should be warned. The Government have back-tracked slightly on the commercialisation. Should they ever be elected again, within days, the Secretary of State for Health would introduce a Bill to bring that commercialisation and privatisation right into the heart of the NHS again.
  As I have said, Labour Members welcome pilot schemes, with all the provisos and everything else. I do not think that I have been too negative. I have tried to be honest about the Bill. There are things in it that I welcome, but, if hon. Members really want to safeguard the NHS and to keep it as a national health service, they should support the reasonable reasoned amendment tonight.
  7.58 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: The nice thing about speaking in this part of the evening—the "black hole" part of it—is that the Front Benchers, with one or two very odd exceptions, have gone to dinner, and it is possible to indulge in as many heresies as one likes without their knowing what has been said. I shall briefly try out one or two heresies on the House in this speech. Generally, however, we have come to praise a measure that we think has potential to do some good, although we have reservations on some matters—such as on evaluation procedures and on planning mechanisms that will remain after the Bill is passed—and questions about links with the private sector. Those reservations and questions will undoubtedly be expressed in amendments to the Bill.
  As I said, we generally welcome the Bill and the Government's conversion to an approach of progress through pilot measures. However, we wonder how different the health service would have been if, some years ago, the Government had approached their reforms to the health service in the same spirit. We even forgive the Government for their use of the word "flexibility" in the Bill. Over the years, we have come to worry about their use of that word to describe health service reform, although I think that it may have some positive benefits in this context.
  We particularly welcome this opportunity squarely to address the issue of quality in the health service—in a manner in which it has so far not been addressed by the Government. If Ministers had set quality as their objective in their health and education measures of the past 18 years, how different their programme would have been. If they had simply set the objective of organisational improvement instead of directing all their energies towards organisational change, how different their health and education agendas would have been.

  205
  I was delighted last week to hear a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on health care quality. He said:
  "In Government, we will shift the balance of attention from quantity to quality."
  That shift of emphasis is long overdue, and it has great, positive implications for the way in which we approach health matters.
  With some reservations, therefore, I come to praise. We come to praise GPs. When people in the United Kingdom tell us that they have been to see the doctor, that they are going to see the doctor or of what the doctor has told them, they are of course talking about their general practitioner. For most people, the GP is the person who represents the health service, at close quarters and most intimately. GPs are also the gatekeepers to the secondary care system, in a system that works splendidly for most people. When the system works well, it works extremely well.
  One of the heresies that I should like to suggest to hon. Members, however, is that occasionally the system does not work so well, and that one of our responsibilities is to ensure that we do something about it when and where it does not work well. If we believe that everyone in the United Kingdom—wherever they live, and to whichever part of the community they belong—has the right of access to a quality general practitioner working in quality premises with quality support, we have to say that some aspects of the current system do not work well at all. The system is not delivering that objective to many people in the most stressed and disadvantaged parts of this country.
  Listening to Conservative Members, I often think that they speak for "comfortable England". It has to be spoken for, and many people are prepared to speak for it. However, some of us have a duty to speak for "uncomfortable England" and for "uncomfortable Britain". I have been speaking only about England because Conservative Members speak solely for England. In uncomfortable Britain, however, parts of the health service and of the primary health service do not work as well as they should. There is a gap between the type of service that Conservative Members speak about and the type of service experienced by the constituents of some Opposition Members. We have a duty to close that gap, and we should try to close that gap in debating and passing this legislation.
  When we say "primary care", we instinctively think of general practitioners, although 90 per cent. of primary care is not delivered by GPs but by other health service professionals. That is the -first uncoupling that we must perform.
  We now have a primary care system that is driven by individual professionals rather than by interdisciplinary health care teams, although I think that most hon. Members think that the system should be driven by interdisciplinary care teams. The Bill presents the opportunity to move in that direction.
  The question, however, is why do we not have such a system now. Why do we not have as the norm primary health care teams, particularly in those parts of the country that are most disadvantaged in health terms? Why do we not have teams of doctors, community nurses, health
  206
  visitors, community midwives, pharmacists and other professionals working together on a team basis in those areas where need is greatest and where health provision is often most scant?
  We know that about 30 per cent. of GP activity could be delegated to nurses without detriment to quality. Why have we not converted that insight into the way in which we deliver health care through primary health care teams? The question I am really asking—it is a type of heresy—is why do we have one system when we would benefit from having another? Why have we grown accustomed to one system—a system of individual professionals working separately—when we need interdisciplinary health care teams, particularly in those areas of greatest need?
  One of the Bill's provisions gives a clue about why we have one system whereas we need another. It is the provision dealing with changing the way in which appointments to general practice are made when no satisfactory candidate presents himself or herself after three re-advertisements. People will be amazed to discover that, heretofore, we have had a system in which unsuitable candidates have been appointed simply because there have been three advertisements. Why has that been done when it was not in the public interest to do so? It was done because that is how we have organised primary care and because those who control the system—the professional bodies—have had such power inside the system.
  Prompted by this Bill, I should like to ask whether the individual contractor system has worked well. Has the Medical Practice Committee—the MPC—succeeded in matching need to supply across the land? How can it have been done when some health authority areas now have a third more GPs per head of population than others? In some places, spending is almost two thirds higher than in others. If the individual contractor system—which is linked to the power of the professional bodies—had worked well, such disparities would not exist.
  I can express another heresy by asking whether the system has delivered guaranteed high quality clinical care. Fortunately, in most places it has, because of the quality of most GPs, but it has not been delivered uniformly. More importantly, we do not know whether the system delivers high quality care because there are no effective procedures to monitor clinical care in general practice. That is one of the consequences of the individual contractor system. The autonomy that is part of the individual contractor system is an autonomy from effective clinical audit. Such autonomy is allowed increasingly less frequently in the secondary care sector, and it should not be allowed in the primary sector—but it has been.
  One of my hopes is that, because of the advent of salaried GPs, we can begin to ensure the performance of clinical audits and to prescribe practices and to take all the other action that we knew was necessary but which we were unable to take because of the way in which the individual contractor system has worked.
  I want to refer to my area, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has reminded the House, has the lowest spend on non-cash limited primary care per head of population for any area in the country. In his annual report last year—it was an excellent report—the local director of public health pointed out that the Cannock Chase area has the highest number of

  207
  practitioners who operate singlehandedly, as well as practitioners with the largest list sizes and the highest level of secondary referrals anywhere in the health authority.
  I went to the health authority—it was then the family health service authority—and pointed out that evidence, which was also linked to further findings revealing that the area has the greatest health need of anywhere in the district. So we have the worst health and the worst primary care. I asked the FHSA what it could do about it but the answer was that it could do nothing because it did not have the power or the instruments to intervene. It could do nothing about the distribution or the quality of primary care.
  There is a town in the constituency that I hope to represent after the election which does not have a woman GP. The health authority has said that, apart from prevailing upon doctors, it can do nothing about it. It is a scandal that we cannot ensure that women have access to a female GP in a substantial town. We have not been able to do those things because we do not have the levers inside the system to direct primary care in the way that we know it should be directed.
  There is a huge primary care agenda and the Bill begins to offer an opportunity to do something about it. The Secretary of State, rather coyly, tries to reassure everybody in sight by saying that this is not a pilot with a big bang. I hope that it is a pilot with a big bang, because it has huge potential to do the strategic things to primary care that we have never been able to do before.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) in her comments about the way in which it is possible for general practitioners to strike people off their list without any explanation or appeal. I have been concerned about that for some time. It is an affront to natural justice, but it is a direct consequence of proceeding on an individual contractor basis as opposed to a salaried basis. Presumably, when we move to a salaried basis, it will not happen, because it will be inconsistent with a publicly provided service.
  I had a constituent recently who was severely mentally ill. He had spent time in mental hospitals and in prison. We searched everywhere for suitable provision for him and I had reached the end of my tether. I wrote a letter to every possible contributor to care for this person and said that, unless something happened soon, this person would kill himself or someone else. In October 1995, as a health care team, including a consultant psychiatrist, was on its way to see him, he committed suicide.
  I asked for a review to be carried out to find out how that could have happened. I wanted to know why the system had let that person down. The trust carried out a review under the proper procedures. Perhaps the most striking thing to come out of the review was the fact that the person had been on a three-month rota between different GPs who did not know his medical history, sometimes did not have his records and were prescribing inappropriately for someone with his condition. They made it too easy for him to kill himself. The report said:
  "The role of the General Practitioner was acknowledged as important in his care and indeed of other people with mental health needs. However, this is often, and was in this case, sabotaged"—
  that is a strong word—
  "by the ability of GPs to remove patients from their register at will."
  208
  The report goes on:
  "The idea that those people who have the greatest potential mental health needs can be removed from a general practitioner's list every three months appears incongruous with the philosophy of community care."
  In its recommendations, the report said:
  "General Practitioners who want to remove those people from their register who have severe mental illness should only do so after discussions and consultation at a formal Care Programme Approach Review."
  That would be bad enough if it was an isolated case, but it is not. I went to the old FHSA and asked about the strike-off rate of patients by GPs in my area. I discovered that we had the highest in the county—385 removals between 1992 and 1994.
  Just this month, an elderly couple, one aged 82 and one aged 87, were deregistered for no apparent reason. They were informed by second-class post in a letter received on 21 January that they were being deregistered on 28 January. There was also the family whose mother had cancer and who were all removed from a list three weeks before her death, seemingly for no apparent reason. The stories go on.
  I accept that there are difficult patients but we must do something with them. Some of the most difficult have the most severe conditions or come from the most distressed areas. No doubt some of them are very costly, but we cannot have a system where removal can take place without any explanation or right of appeal. I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, and I hope that, together with its provisions to secure the right of people to choose doctors, the Bill will help to secure their right not to be removed arbitrarily from a doctor's list.
  I want to issue another heresy. The Bill says that it will cost very little—it talked about £6 million as a set-up cost in the next year. I think that, potentially, it will cost us a great deal. The infusion of resources into a revamped team-based primary care sector that the Bill promises is likely to be enormous. If it is not to come from an already stretched secondary care sector, we should be honest about the funding. We must be honest about how we fund the health service. The Government talk rhetorically about extra funding year on year, but we know that that does not stand up over the next two or three years. We must be serious about whether we want to fund the health service so that it can develop in the way promised in the Bill. We have a duty to give the people of this country a choice about whether they want to do that.
  My final heresy is to say that I am prepared to ask people to pay a health premium payment, an HPP—we must not use the word tax. We must ask them whether they want to make such a payment to secure the future of the health service for ever. I say that as someone who was born in the year in which the national health service was founded. We have a choice coming up: we have to decide whether we want to guarantee the future of the health service for the next half century. If we do, I am afraid that we must pay for it.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I listened with considerable interest to everything that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said—I hope that I have got his constituency right. He was fortunate to

  209
  follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who, I think, used to be a nurse in the national health service. Shortly before her came the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). I am not sure whether he still has time to practise, but he has considerable experience in the national health service. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) with a run-down of my various ailments over the past few years because it would take too long. I congratulate him on the birth of his son—I am sure that that is a happy occasion for all concerned.
  Before coming to my main points, I question the way in which the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood attempted to elevate his arguments with the word "heresy". I did not find anything that he said in the least heretical and I do not imagine that those on the Labour Front Bench, or anybody else, will send him to the stake for what he has just said. He made a thoughtful, interesting and at times wrong-headed speech, but he should not try to persuade us that his arguments are any the better by describing his interesting remarks as heretical. We all listened with interest, but his arguments are not advanced one jot by over-egging their description.
  I agree that not all primary care comes from general practitioners. It is right to stress that. I shall elaborate on it in a moment. I shall also talk about the interdisciplinary practices that he referred to. There is an interesting agreement across the House on those points.
  I should like to be controversial to start with by picking a few holes in Labour's reasoned amendment. Why on earth did they draft it in that way? The third line says that the Bill
  "fails to require health authorities to consult with patients and professional groups on pilot projects".
  A failure to require that does not mean that they cannot or need not do such things. I suggest that that is a wholly otiose collection of words in that particular part of the proposed amendment.
  The reasoned amendment goes on to say that the Bill
  "fails to provide for nurses and other primary care professionals to participate fully in pilot projects where appropriate".
  No doubt they will participate when appropriate. Primary legislation is not required for that.
  Mr. Spring: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I ask my hon. Friend to be a little patient, because I am making a fascinating point.
  The reasoned amendment goes on to say that the Bill
  "fails to establish criteria by which the success of pilot projects can be evaluated and fails to provide for health authorities to employ directly general practitioners".
  The Bill may not include such provisions, but that does not detract from its value. The reasoned amendment goes on:
  "it includes provisions to allow private companies to employ general practitioners to provide patient care, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship".
  That is one of the more interesting—or perhaps less interesting—non-sequiturs that new Labour has come up with in recent weeks. The fact that one doctor has a
  210
  different contractual arrangement with the person who pays his salary than does another has no bearing on the way in which he should provide patient care. To suggest that the doctor-patient relationship is undermined and damaged by that is simple poppycock. I suspect that the Labour party knows that, and merely wanted to add words to the amendment for the sake of it.
  The amendment winds up with these wonderful words:
  "the destruction of the principle of health care being available according to need and free at the point of delivery."
  Nothing that is printed above those final two lines of the amendment has any bearing on that conclusion.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), who is sitting patiently.
  Mr. Spring: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that flexibility is at the heart of the Bill—flexibility to adapt to local conditions that vary from one part of the country to another? Concomitant with that is the fact that pilot schemes for that purpose are inherent in the Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: Labour Members may have drafted the amendment before they had read the Bill. My hon. Friend's point is a good one.
  Mr. Barron: Why was the hon. and learned Gentleman not in the Chamber when the amendment that he has quoted was moved?
  Mr. Garnier: Because I was elsewhere. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to wind up.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: He was in his chambers.
  Mr. Garnier: I was not in chambers. The hon. Gentleman has been known to make inaccurate remarks of that sort before. I shall not rise to it.
  I want to take issue with the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood and some of his hon. Friends who have been here for a little longer than the hon. and voluble Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) who sits for the provisional Labour party. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood made some valuable points about the primary care aspects of the Bill. Primary care is not always provided by the general practitioner; it is provided by a range of health professionals who play a complementary role to that of the GP. Visiting our general practitioner is the main point of contact with the NHS for most of us. However, a constituency Member of Parliament has to take a wider view and no doubt Ministers at the Department of Health have a better view of the bigger picture.
  My constituency is fortunate in its primary care teams. I trust that they will be strengthened and their flexibility—to use the word chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds—will be enhanced by some of the provisions in the Bill.

  211
  A range of medical professionals operate from Market Harborough, Kibworth, which is half way between Market Harborough and the city of Leicester, and the borough of Oadby and Wigston, which is the part of my constituency closest to the city of Leicester: health visitors; district nurses; occupational therapists; radiographers; and those engaged in the provision of continuing care, particularly for patients who have been in one of the three major hospitals in the city of Leicester and are not ready to go home, but need to convalesce or spend some time in a halfway house first.
  All those people perform valuable and valued services in south-east Leicestershire. It is right, as the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood said, to think not only of general practitioners. Despite the fact that there is not, I think, a single fundholder, my constituency is fortunate in having excellent general practitioners who are dedicated to the national health service as an institution and to the care of their patients.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I admit that I have not been present for much of the debate because of other duties in the House, but I was particularly interested in many of the remarks by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). I know his area well—Cannock Chase and Burntwood. There used to be a major mental health hospital—St. Matthew's—in his area.
  Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that the patients—the people of this country—would receive better health care, better treatment and better attention if the doctors, male or female, were salaried or, as at present, private professionals contracting to the national health service? Does he believe that the morale of doctors would be improved and that people would get better treatment if, as the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood suggests, they were salaried rather than contractors?
  Mr. Garnier: When criticising the reasoned amendment, I pointed out that the allegation that a link with a private company that employs a general practitioner damages the quality of health care is fallacious. I hope that I have therefore already answered my hon. Friend in addressing the terms of the amendment. There may well be some excellent doctors who will want to continue as self-employed practitioners, and some excellent doctors who will want to become employed doctors. To me, what is important is the service and the care that they deliver, not the manner in which they are remunerated.
  I should like to expand a little further on the provision of community primary care services, especially in so far as it affects my constituents. We were fortunate to be visited in the past fortnight by my hon. Friend the Minister, who was able to see for himself at first hand the provision of primary care not only in my constituency but in the city of Leicester. I trust that he came back to London with the message that, "If you want to be ill, Leicestershire is the place to do it." The county has some of the best equipment, personnel and hospitals at all levels, and is a credit to the NHS.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has already discussed for some little while the three major acute hospitals in the city of Leicester, so I shall not repeat what he said. However, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of what he will have been told when he came to Market Harborough not so long ago about the benefits of the local
  212
  provision of primary care, particularly that given through the Market Harborough and District hospital on Coventry road in the town and in the local health centres.
  I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to clause 27, which deals with pharmaceutical services. There has been considerable debate in my constituency about the provision of such services by rural GP practices. There is a competition, not to say an outright squabble, between pure pharmacists, who have shops and want to provide prescriptions, and rural GP practices, which earn quite a lot of their income by prescribing NHS drugs, thus enabling them to invest in the services that they want to provide for their patients. I trust that we can find our way to a sensible resolution of the dispute between rural GP practices and pharmaceutical service providers during debates on the Bill.
  I should like to comment on the huge number of regulations suggested in the Bill. There is hardly a clause that does not provide for the creation of regulations. I am all for the proper use of regulations in order to deliver a particular service well, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to bear very much in mind the problems of over-regulation. I gently chide them so that we do not end up with so much red tape and the binding of people to regulations that they cannot deliver what they are required to deliver.
  The Opposition amendment complains—mention of it has been made by me, if not others—about the link between private employers and the provision of national health service GP services. I want the Government to encourage partnership between the private sector and the public sector.
  One extremely good example of such partnership is the Macmillan green ribbon appeal at the Leicester Royal infirmary. As a consequence of that appeal, £1.5 million has been raised in the past year. The appeal committee was chaired by Mr. James Wilson of Gaulby in my constituency. As a result of the huge amount of money that he and his colleagues on the appeal committee have been able to raise, a whole new oncology building has been built next door to the royal infirmary.
  That is a classic example of the proper exercise of partnership between the private sector and the public sector. The NHS will benefit from the building, while the private sector has played a useful role in building it and ensuring that its use will soon be under way.
  The Bill ought to be welcomed. The Official Opposition's amendment is confused, confusing, and detracts from some of the better points that have been made by some Opposition Members, which is to be regretted. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will beat a speedy path back to Market Harborough so that he can see some of the other wonderful things that are going on in hospitals there.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I should say in response to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) that I have no difficulty at all in defending, and, indeed, supporting the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is constructive. All Labour Members have made it very clear that the principle of a discussion of primary care is to be welcomed. Indeed, we have been calling for it for some considerable time.

  213
  Parts of the Bill are to be welcomed, too, but since other hon. Members want to speak I shall not dwell on those aspects, save to say that the principle of piloting is a very good idea and is being welcomed around the country. I know that in Birmingham, which has been at the forefront of developing ideas for local commissioning of the kind that Labour Members have been suggesting, people are coming up with some fairly imaginative ideas for pilots that the Government could take up if the Bill is enacted.
  There are nevertheless significant weaknesses in the Bill, which so far the Government have not addressed. The first is one of principle. I still fail to see—I mentioned this the last time that I contributed to a debate on the health service—how the Government can think that an effective primary care strategy can work, with the co-operation that it involves between different parts of the health service, if it is grafted on to a market mechanism whose ethos is splitting up the health service into different units and making them compete with each other.
  That is very different from saying that there is anything wrong with separating the commissioning from the providing of health care, which makes a good deal of sense. For the health service to function effectively as a national service—whether that be nationally or in the locality—co-operation and team work of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) is required, not competition.
  Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burden: With respect, a number of hon. Members want to speak, so I will make progress. I will not be able to take any interventions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how the system to which I referred can work and focus more on quality, I could do worse than refer him to the speech on quality in health care and the building of a co-operative ethos in the health service made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, only last week.
  I should like to address the problems in the Bill and I hope that, in winding up, the Minister will clear up some points on which I at least am still a little hazy. The Government have said that they have listened to the criticism about what has been described as the supermarket surgery—the commercialisation aspects of the Bill—and that they will table an amendment to address them. I am still rather confused about what the Government intend to do.
  It has been said—I think that the Secretary of State indicated it when he opened the debate—that the question of direct employment of general practitioners by commercial enterprises will not be acceptable under the proposed amendment. Will the Minister clarify exactly what is meant by direct employment? Perhaps more to the point, does he envisage indirect employment, and what might the consequences be for commercialisation of the health service?
  I put to the Secretary of State earlier a problem that already exists when there is a commercial relationship between a patient and an outside body, and the impact that it can have on GP referral patterns. Such a problem is equally relevant when the relationship is between the GP and commercial areas. GPs are telling me that, if a
  214
  patient comes to see them under the health service but is a member of a private health insurance scheme and a referral is needed, there can be pressure on the GP—if the referral is to be through the private insurance scheme—to refer to the preferred provider. So the GP's role as a purchaser of health care can be compromised.
  If it can happen that way round, it can also happen if the GP is tied into a commercial firm outside. I ask the Minister to define exactly what the Government mean when they talk about employment, and where the boundaries are. There is also a question relating to acute trusts. The Minister said in the last debate on this matter, and the Secretary of State mentioned it again today, that while it is unlikely that acute trusts would employ salaried GPs, the Government were not prepared to rule it out. They said that it would be ruled out only where there is a conflict of interest. When the Minister winds up, I want him to talk about where he thinks that there would be a conflict of interest, and equally important where he thinks that there would not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned earlier that if a local acute trust employed a salaried GP, that might create a problem in that it would be cornering the market for referrals, which would put pressure on the GP. I also see a problem if the acute trust was not in a local area and was trying to attract business—to use the market term—for its own hospital by employing a GP in another area. I ask the Minister to clarify how he will guard against those problems.
  If commercial enterprises can have a role in this, and if acute trusts can employ GPs, why cannot health authorities? The Secretary of State said earlier today that it would compromise the purchaser-provider split, but the GP's role is one of both purchaser and provider. The Government are saying that a health authority cannot employ a GP because the GP is a provider of health care, but what about the fact that a GP is also a purchaser of health care? If the GP is employed by an acute trust, that compromises the purchaser-provider split. If a health authority is to fulfil the role of identifying health needs in an area and enable the development of primary health care, what reason is there for preventing it from employing GPs?
  There are flaws in the Bill, but that does not remove the value of discussing primary care and having new legislation on that. There is a shortage of GPs. There are recruitment problems, and they must be addressed. The boundaries that used to exist between secondary and primary care are becoming fuzzy and in many places are breaking down. It is no longer easy to determine exactly what should take place in a hospital and what should take place in a local health centre, but the structure of NHS finance still maintains that division, which is not there in reality.
  I give just one example. If a patient on a low income needs to get to a hospital that is not nearby, it is likely that he or she will get financial assistance for transport, but if the same patient needs the same treatment and instead gets it at the local health centre, he or she cannot get financial assistance to get there because it is not funded in the same way. Those anomalies need to be addressed. I welcome the Bill in so far that it has started the discussion, but without the reasoned amendment tabled by the Labour party it is flawed.
  If a primary health care strategy is to be developed and is to mean what it says in developing a national health service that prevents ill health as well as treating the

  215
  consequences of ill health, it needs to look beyond the boundaries of the health service. It is a fact that the life expectancy of somebody in the lowest income tenth of the population is eight years less than that of somebody in the highest income tenth of the population. Unless we as a society address the problems of poor housing, of the benefit system and the poverty trap, of the availability of work and of low pay, a primary health care strategy will not work. A multi-disciplinary approach is needed to tackle the problem, not just within the health service but between the health service and our economic policies.
  Sadly, from "The Health of the Nation" White Paper onwards, the Government have not shown themselves willing to acknowledge the huge link between poverty and ill health. Until the Government address that issue, we shall not have an effective primary health care strategy in this country.
  8.44 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I give a very warm welcome to the Bill. It is fundamental and is a natural development of the way in which health care is going. This afternoon, however, I appeared on a television programme with the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). I think that she will recall that our conversations appeared at complete odds. She talked about "crisis in the health service", constantly running the health service down, somehow suggesting that GPs are to be in the pay of unscrupulous commercial organisations.
  Ms Jowell: Rubbish.
  Lady Olga Maitland: It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say, "Rubbish," but that is the truth.
  What worries me is that such a performance is deeply damaging. It does not enhance her own cause and it worries the patients outside. The hon. Lady carries a grave responsibility when people then ring up believing the erroneous and totally inaccurate information fed to them by the Labour party. On the one hand, the Labour party says that it is all for the national health service, but on the other it bashes it down, runs it down and denigrates all the work that we have done.
  It is a curious fact that when I talk to people in their own homes and we discuss the health service, they say, "I'm very worried." When I ask them why they are worried, they tell me that they are worried because of what the Labour party says—that the health service is in crisis. It is in no crisis at all. Indeed, when we discuss the situation a bit more, people tell me that they understand that the Conservatives have put more money than ever before into health care.
  It is important that we try to brush away the cobwebs and confusion put about by the Labour party and look more positively at what the Government are trying to do. We are trying to move ahead with the times. We have recognised that we have reached a stage where GPs are able to provide a service that is second to none. Give them their freedom, allow them to become fundholders—as more than half the country's GPs are—and it is excellence that they provide. I have seen the differences for myself in a fundholding practice, which now carries out minor surgery. It has consulting rooms where people are given counselling about various problems. People come in to give physiotherapy. It has employed nurses. It links up with osteopaths. There is no end to the services that an effective GP fundholding practice can provide.
  216
  There is another side to the coin, however. While such practices are going full blast in perhaps the more prosperous areas—in my constituency they are a wonderful showcase of modern medicine—I am aware that there are GPs working on their own, particularly in the inner cities, which are less attractive to GPs, who badly need to expand the services that they would like to provide.
  Would it not make marvellous sense for such a GP to branch out and set up a relationship, say, with the local supermarket or shopping centre to bring in private finance, like the private finance initiative, which the Labour party is not a bit against, as I understand it, to bring in fresh money and fresh enterprise and thus be able to provide the services that they are not able to provide on their own? That is known as flexibility and moving with the times; it will certainly respond to patients' needs, and I believe that it will be greatly appreciated.
  I am worried about the Labour party's allegation that there will be unscrupulous behaviour and that doctors will be in hock to companies which will insist on selling only those drugs and treatments that generate a profit to themselves. That allegation totally ignores all the safeguards which are built into the Bill to ensure that the health service continues to provide the excellence, honesty and integrity that it has always provided.
  It is reassuring that in another place a number of their Lordships conceded that the Bill would provide services that will be much appreciated. The fact that the pilot schemes have to be referred to the health authority and then to the Secretary of State, and that he can veto unsuitable schemes, shows that we are not allowing unscrupulous people to get through. I would be more worried about too much red tape and bureaucracy slowing up a jolly good idea, which would spoil what we are trying to do. We could be almost too careful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that point.
  We have moved into an age in which we should be expanding and taking advantage of all the outside interests which could benefit patient care. That is the name of the game, and I give the Bill a warm welcome and wish it a safe passage.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I had a nightmare last night that I believe was brought on by the Secretary of State's words following the Queen's Speech, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Perhaps it happened because Asda is prominent in my constituency or because I have met Archie Norman once or twice on business connected with Asda and my constituents. He is obviously an able entrepreneur, and I know that he now has other roles in the Tory party.
  In my nightmare, I imagined Asda setting up surgeries in my constituency. A patient would go to an Asda surgery and tell the doctor that he was suffering from stress; shortly afterwards, he would receive an advertisement for Asda products—low-fat, easy-to-cook, microwaveable nouvelle cuisine, perhaps—that would be good for his condition. I imagined in my nightmare that such a tie-up might happen.
  The Secretary of State told me today that I was completely wrong and that there would be no commercial pressures. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was kind, and the hon. Member for

  217
  Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was disingenuous, in responding to that. The latter regarded it as a pledge that was there for all time, but I believe what Colin Brown wrote in today's The Independent. He said:
  "Mr Dorrell agreed to revise the clause after the British Medical Association warned that it would ask GPs to make the proposal for `supermarket surgeries' an election issue."
  I rather think that that is why the proposal has been dropped. It is potentially dangerous, because it shows that privatisation, perhaps by stealth, could happen in primary care if the Conservatives won a further term. I am sure, however, that the public will have understood that message.
  I understand that the Minister played a critical role in securing that pledge from the Secretary of State; that is because he has been at the front line of the consultations and knows that GPs do not want commercialisation or commercial pressures, as the BMA made very clear. Will he make it absolutely clear that clause 14 will be dropped from the Bill? It was said that only health service bodies would make provision, but under the clause a non-health service body could do so.
  If the clause is dropped, my nightmare will not come true—at least not for the moment: I should like to be completely sure that it was dropped for all time and not merely to woo the electorate. The public have made it absolutely clear that they do not want doctors provided by commercial organisations.
  In Morley in my constituency, there is an extremely active community pharmacy, the Janet Ward pharmacy, that has an excellent system of working with a local GP and providing a genuine community service, taking care of all the pensioners and people in serious and urgent need. To do that, it has to maintain large stocks, and it is running an excellent business. It is helpful if such community activities can be part of an NHS contract, as is suggested in the Bill. I am in favour of that.
  The pharmacy, however, is just down the road from the Asda store, which undercuts its prices for drugs. As a result, it is becoming more difficult for it to stock the necessary range and quantity of drugs. Two aspects of the Bill are therefore working in conflict with one another. I do not want to deal with the specifics of the sale of drugs and price maintenance, but that is not unrelated to continuing community pharmacies.
  We broadly welcome the Bill, as long as the commercial clause 14 is dropped. We consider that the Bill gives a welcome flexibility in GP contracts and view it as a boost for local co-operation in the provision of primary medical services. It is a departure from the narrow competition of fundholding. The patient is currently disadvantaged by the rigidity of a system that prevents GPs from taking a greater role in the development of services.
  I am glad that the Government have come to see the value in Labour's policy of local commissioning. Apart from our concern about the role of acute hospitals trusts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) mentioned, the Bill, once it has been pruned of its more dangerous elements, is to be welcomed.
  I have some specific questions for the Minister. Nurses and midwives have been mentioned several times. In Committee in the Lords, Baroness McFarlane tabled an
  218
  amendment to make the right of nurses to set up a primary practice an explicit part of the Bill. Baroness Cumberlege rejected that as unnecessary, because she believed that the Secretary of State would look favourably on some nurses' pilot schemes; but how will we get such schemes unless that is made clear in the Bill?
  I welcome the possibility of pilot schemes in NHS dentistry. It is worrying that NHS dentists have almost disappeared in some places, especially where there is a sufficient potential base of private patients.
  On commissioning, I asked the Secretary of State about the time limit for schemes. I was glad that he said that he would table an amendment to set a maximum time of three years but I am surprised that he does not think that we need an amendment to set a minimum time. The British Medical Association suggests 18 months, which is a sensible time for a pilot to run. It is important that pilots run for a complete financial year because the way in which schemes are financed is important.
  I am not convinced that the Bill and its explanatory and financial memorandum allow enough money. For the financial year 1997–98, a provisional £6 million has been allowed. Clause 16 allows for public funding of the costs of preparing the pilot schemes. It sets limits on such funding and allows for repayment if conditions are not complied with, but is there a potential additional cost to health authorities that the Secretary of State will not fund? It is unrealistic to think that £6 million will cover the cost of preparing, managing, monitoring and evaluating schemes.
  I am worried about the single budget for health care. It is right to have one, but once schemes are up and running, clause 32 provides that health authorities will fund costs from cash-limited expenditure that currently funds hospital and community care. We are told that the single health budget is intended to boost cottage hospitals, but the Government have closed 245 of them since 1990. There is no estimate in the memorandum of how much will have to be transferred from the non-cash-limited budget that is currently used for general practice. Will any shortfall come out of health authority purchasing power? There will also be an effect on secondary care funding. I doubt whether all the changes can be funded from £6 million and efficiency savings in primary care.
  We welcome much of the Bill but we need to be convinced that the Secretary of State has really chopped off his previous commitment to the commercialisation of services. I would like to be sure that that is not, as The Independent says, an electoral response. We are concerned about the effect of commercialisation on the doctor-patient relationship.
  We are concerned about the distribution of GPs around the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) about the importance of the present restriction on general practices coming into pre-registration training. It is anachronistic to talk about health centres as the Bill does. It suggests that all progressive general practices are in health centres. I should not have thought the Secretary of State would want to cut out fundholders from undertaking such work, but that is what he is doing by using only practices within publicly funded health centres. I hope that he will consider that carefully. It is time that I sat down, but I hope that the Minister will comment on some of those important points.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I very much welcome the Bill, which deals with primary care. Primary care is regarded by many as the jewel in the crown of the NHS, and it is also the envy of other health services throughout the world.
  It is often said that many professions enjoy low public esteem and certainly—according to the polls—we as Members of Parliament share with journalists and estate agents that low esteem. Even the clergy sometimes have difficulties. But one profession that enjoys considerable public esteem is the medical profession—our GPs. That is because they are a central part of life in our cities, towns and villages. The local accessibility and the trust that they have developed among their patients and in their communities are so valuable. Part of the primary care provision is the role of community nurses, to whom I pay special tribute. Many of my constituents have talked about the role that they play.
  In the evolution of GPs—and latterly of fundholdersthere has been an expansion in the services they offer. We can all remember the old-fashioned premises in which doctors used to operate, which were not at all user-friendly. Today—particularly in GP fundholding practices—one enters an environment that is wholly different from that of the past. Services such as minor surgery, chiropody, improved diagnostic procedures, ultrasound, X-ray facilities and pharmaceutical services are provided, and these are greatly valued by local communities.
  I saw that for myself in the village of Lakenheath in my constituency, which has 5,500 residents. Doctors in the village wanted to increase the scope of the pharmaceutical services that they provided to the community. Another pharmacist came along and wanted to set up a rival operation but, interestingly, local people passionately wanted only the doctors to provide the service. Whatever the pros and cons of that issue were, it underlined the value of primary care services and how much they are trusted and appreciated in our communities.
  I have mentioned the enhanced range of services that are available, but following GP fundholding there has been an additional drive to quality. This has been led by the fact that realistic choices are given to GPs to pursue better services for the treatment of their patients. In the past few weeks, I have written to all the GP fundholders in my constituency, and I am slowly beginning to receive replies. Many are concerned about the setting up of the so-called locality GP commissioning groups. They have asked me what these will mean in practice, and whether GPs will lose the right to direct patients to hospitals of their choice. They are concerned about the potential additional bureaucracy of the so-called consultation process involved in the setting up and operation of the commissioning groups.
  The truth is that there have been many changes at the primary end of the NHS, but it is now basically working very well indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it—that is the principle. However, there is a feeling that the current national arrangements are inadequate as they are insufficiently flexible. It is true that the needs of communities differ from one part of the country to the next. But at the heart of the Bill—this is what makes it so welcome—is additional local flexibility to allow GPs to match their skills to the needs of their communities and patients. The Bill will also provide a legal framework for
  220
  medical and dental services. I particularly welcome the fact that pilot schemes are seen as part and parcel of the way in which it is envisaged the Bill will operate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to preventive medicine. In the expansion of primary care facilities in this country, we have seen an ever greater emphasis on preventive medicine. Health care needs are being brought to the attention of the people. We would all like to live to a ripe old age in a healthy way, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that Dame Barbara Cartland is a shining example of that.
  The fact is that local flexibility needs to adjust to different circumstances. When I served on the Select Committee on Health, I went to the east end of London, where there are considerable problems with respiratory and bronchial ailments that need to be addressed at a primary level. Those problems are being addressed and the services will be enhanced by the Bill.
  I also welcome the fact that, as primary care has evolved, there has been greater use of complementary medicine, especially by GP fundholders. Homeopathy is now seen to work at a complementary level and many doctors believe that there is some value in that. Hon. Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) introduced a Bill to bring chiropractic into the mainstream of accepted medical practice and the same change of attitude is happening in respect of osteopathy—an holistic approach, which has been pioneered at the primary level and is so welcome in expanding services in this country.
  I am delighted to say that, on Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come to my constituency to visit Newmarket hospital—indeed, some years ago when he was a junior Minister, he was involved in the decisions about the future of the hospital. He will see that out of that £8 million project has come an important bridge from primary care to the sort of services that are offered at the hospital, leading up to acute care facilities. The level of satisfaction among out-patients is high and the services that are offered, working closely with GPs, including radiography and physiotherapy, are greatly valued.
  That flexibility is so important. Only this afternoon, I received a letter from a GP in Newmarket telling me how successful the new hospital was and how well he was able to slot in his activities at primary level with those of the hospital. We now have a spectrum of NHS services that is clearly enhancing patient care.
  I want to make one point in respect of acute care. Many spurious points have been made about the health of the NHS as a whole. As I go around the main acute care hospital in my constituency, the West Suffolk hospital in Bury St. Edmunds, and look at the staggering range of new facilities that has been introduced over the past few years—from the day surgery centre to the state-of-the-art intensive care wards to a brand-new £500,000 operating theatre—I know that more patients are being treated and better services are being offered. I pay tribute, on behalf of my constituents, to the range of facilities that are now offered.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on one issue that has been brought to my attention by GPs in my constituency, which is the fact that many of them feel that the route into working in hospitals—the possibility of moving up and perhaps becoming consultants—has

  221
  become increasingly attractive relative to the alternative of staying on as GPs. Many feel that for a variety of reasons the attraction of being a GP, as opposed to working in a hospital environment, has lessened somewhat in the past few years. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on that.
  The level of actual NHS satisfaction is extremely high. The expansion of primary care has been greatly welcomed, not only in my constituency but throughout the whole country. At the heart of the Bill is a principle with which I wholeheartedly agree: the principle of pilot schemes to ensure that the flexibility inherent in the Bill is introduced appropriately. The Bill also ensures legislative changes to make the carrying out of primary care more appropriate.
  The Bill moves primary care into a further stage of sophistication and attractiveness. I very much welcome it.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Don Touhig: I welcome some of the measures in the Bill, such as appointments to single-handed practices, the move towards practice-based contracts and the provision for salaried GPs. Yet I reflect that, when Aneurin Bevan founded the national health service, the guiding principle was that the health service should be available according to need and free at the point of delivery. Sadly, 18 years of Tory rule have seen the erosion of that principle, and I fear that, if the Bill is passed as it stands, it will lead to the destruction of that principle.
  We have already had the introduction of individual GP fundholding, which, with the internal market, has without question brought about a two-tier health service. Many patients are no longer treated on the basis of need. Instead, other factors such as age, where they live or whether their GP is a fundholder are considered important.
  Last year, I was at the European Surgical Institute in Hamburg with several British consultants. One of them told me that he had been telephoned by a GP who asked him what he charged to do a hernia operation privately. He replied: "Seven hundred pounds." The GP replied: "I will give you £10,000; do it for £300." That is not the language of health care but the language of the market trader.
  Senior staff to whom I have spoken in the health service confirm that treatment is no longer available on the basis of need. I fear that, if the Bill is passed in its present form, it will accentuate the variation in the quality of services that patients receive and encourage cherry picking.
  I listened to what the Secretary of State said about amendments that would be tabled in Committee, and I welcome what he said. However, the Bill as drafted offers no safeguards against the growth of a two-tier health service—a two-tier health service in which hospital services are effectively being denied patients who are not registered with a GP fundholder.
  In September 1996, Derek Smith, chief executive of King's Healthcare NHS trust in south London, said:
  "a two-tier NHS is an everyday reality".
  It is an everyday reality for those who rely on the NHS.
  Recently, in another place, Baroness Jay said that there is surely something wrong when Lincoln county hospital writes to all non-fundholding GPs in its area, cancelling
  222
  out-patient appointments for the rest of the financial year, although it is telling fundholding GPs that they can continue to send their patients there.
  The Bill will have a significant effect on the way in which the health service operates. Pilot schemes are a key feature of the Bill, which I welcome. I also welcome the Government's change of mind on pilot schemes. It is quite a surprise to many people in the medical profession and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) expressed his surprise earlier.
  I recall the remarks of Dr John Marks, chairman of the BMA, at the time when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Secretary of State for Health, suggesting that we should have pilot schemes, to which the Secretary of State replied that he would not agree to them because the BMA would sabotage them.
  The provision in the Bill that allows "other bodies" to become involved in the formulation of pilot schemes by sponsoring someone who has an existing NHS contract or by allowing them to apply to become health service bodies is obviously deeply worrying. We must wait until the Committee stage to discover what more the Secretary of State has to say on that point.
  Supermarkets, large pharmaceutical companies and private health care companies have all been considering the feasibility of becoming involved in pilot schemes. Asda has been considering plans to provide rental space for GPs in supermarkets. Unichem has plans to build up to 20 new health centres and has suggested that it should employ GPs as part of a consortium with BUPA. PPP Healthcare proposed a pilot scheme involving provision of GP services at the company's private hospitals with referrals for hospital care to the hospital. We shall need to discover in Committee what the Secretary of State plans.
  Those are significant concerns—concerns about the integrity and quality of primary health care and about the very existence of the national health service. I know that they are shared by the BMA and general practitioners. Only yesterday, I spoke to a general practitioner in my constituency, Dr. Sahni. He tells me that, to his knowledge, about 80 to 90 per cent. of GPs consider most of the proposals in the Bill to be extremely damaging. As Dr. Sahni pointed out, when a large pharmaceutical company becomes involved the emphasis is no longer on patient care. Commercial organisations would be under pressure to maximise income and it is probable that they would seek to sell a range of services and products that are not necessarily in the interests of patient care.
  Some aspects of the Bill risk destabilising the general practitioner service. At the moment, patients know that the NHS family doctor has a contract with the state. The BMA has stated that the family doctor service remains, and must remain, fully within the NHS and not be open to direct or indirect privatisation. Under the Tory Government, we have seen creeping privatisation. It is no longer possible for the majority to get free eye tests, which are an essential health check, and the number of dentists offering treatment under the NHS continues to fall. That is the legacy of the Tories, and I fear that the Bill provides for more privatisation.
  Doctors to whom I talk tell me that they are disillusioned and demoralised, and we must take account of what they say. They are dedicated professionals,

  223
  but they have enormous difficulty securing the best care for their patients because of the internal market and creeping privatisation.
  We cannot run primary or secondary health care like a supermarket. Doctors know that, the Opposition know that and the people of our country know that, but Conservative Members do not know it. Like Opposition Members, doctors and the public believe that general medical services must remain fully within the NHS; that GPs must be free to exercise independent clinical judgment; and that the Bill, as it stands, will fundamentally destroy the basic principle of the NHS. The public ask why the Tories never learn.
  9.21 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: The Secretary of State's announcement on commercialisation was a huge climbdown, but it was born of coercion rather than conviction. At the launch of the White Paper "Choice and Opportunity" that preceded the Bill, the Secretary of State was glorying in headlines that heralded the "big bang" style deregulation of general practice. It was claimed that the way would be opened for supermarkets and other private companies to employ GPs. The GPs would then be accountable to their employers—a different prospect from supermarkets or any other potential landlord being able to offer premises for rent to GPs.
  Before the Secretary of State's climbdown, Asda and Unichem were trailed as having an interest in employing GPs, PPP Healthcare had already submitted a bid and one central London GP claimed to have had three approaches from private companies. The future appeared to be one of American-style health maintenance organisations that could pick and choose between patients.
  What has happened? We know that the Secretary of State now deals with health as his day job, while moonlighting—much to the irritation and embarrassment of his colleagues—on devolution, Europe and constitutional matters. For the benefit of the House, perhaps the Secretary of State can clear up the confusion on whether he speaks on constitutional matters—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to call the hon. Lady to order, but, however wide Second Reading debates may be, the Bill does not embrace constitutional reform.
  Ms Jowell: We are concerned to ensure that the Secretary of State is fighting for patients and not fighting to become the Leader of the Opposition after the election. The difficulty is another example of the chaos that is besetting the Government. During the Secretary of State's distractions, GPs have been standing up for the values of the national health service—hence today's climbdown.
  The proposals for the privatisation of primary care have been dropped not out of conviction, but to avoid a row with the British Medical Association in the run-up to the election. If the Government thought that they could get away with it, they would go ahead.
  The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he thought that the concern raised by Labour and the BMA about the commercialisation of general practice was misplaced. The implication was that the misunderstanding was on our part. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of his comment to Pulse:
  224
  "If a service cannot be provided using other routes, commercial enterprise may offer a solution."
  Even though the Government have backed off, there is still enormous scope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) rightly pointed out, for a new relationship between the private sector and general practice—a relationship that we believe would be to the detriment of patient care. Despite the Secretary of State's climbdown, we shall use the Committee stage, if the Bill secures a Second Reading, to ensure that further avenues to privatisation and fragmentation of the national health service are closed.
  The Secretary of State spoke today about
  "the importance of the pilot-based approach."
  We welcome that change of heart, but it will surprise many in the NHS who still have the bruises to show from the previous round of Tory NHS reforms. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), still speaks proudly of imposing the Government's dogmatic internal market on a reluctant health service. He said at the time:
  "I was quite sure that if you isolated a few places as pilots, all the best efforts of the BMA element in the medical profession would be bent to ensure that it failed."
  Had he shared the more consensual approach preferred by the current Secretary of State, we would not be saddled with a bureaucratic competitive market that is universally detested in the NHS.
  Then there is the Secretary of State's discovery of the value of GP commissioning. Welcome to Labour's cause, which appeared in the White Paper, "Choice and Opportunity". Labour's proposals will ensure equity between patients, less bureaucracy and co-operation between GPs in the procurement of patient care.
  GP fundholding, however, has reinforced inequity between patients. Whether or not people have fundholding GPs has become a major and unfair determinant of whether they get hospital treatment. As the Audit Commission remarked, fundholders tend to come from suburbs and shires, rather than inner cities, and, as a natural corollary, tend to look after more affluent and less socially deprived patients.
  We also welcome the Government's climbdown today on the critical role played by the Medical Practices Committee in central work force planning, and ensuring within the terms of its remit that there is an even spread of family doctors across the country. As my hon. Friends have made clear during the debate, there are parts of the country that suffer from chronic shortages of GPs. In my health authority and that of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), 20 GP vacancies are currently unfilled.
  I pay tribute to the Medical Practices Committee for its rigour in checking the eligibility of GPs to practise. It is worth noting, and I am sure it is not accidental, that, since the NHS was created, only one bogus GP has ever entered practice. That demonstrates the rigour with which the committee applies itself to its task.
  We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State was so adamant that the Bill as at present drafted does not preclude nurse-led pilots. That must be made clear to the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing, which have slightly different concerns, but are both clear that the Bill as drafted excludes that possibility. We shall return to that in Committee if the Bill secures a Second Reading, so that the position can be made absolutely clear.

  225
  As my hon. Friends have said, there are parts of the Bill that we welcome and support. We hope that the proposal to allow community trusts to employ GPs will help to address the chronic problems of GP recruitment in some areas. The move towards practice-based contracts is welcome, as are the new rules for the appointment of GPs to single-handed practices. The only question is why it did not occur many years ago. Hon. Members raised many other issues during the debate that we shall wish to pursue in Committee, if the Bill gets that far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) drew attention to the worrying decline in the number of medical trainees entering general practice. He suggested that medical students should conduct part of their training in general practice. He makes common cause with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims), and I hope that it will be possible to proceed with the proposal on the basis of cross-party support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) made a valuable contribution to the debate, setting out in detail the inequity in the distribution of primary care resources. He also underlined the enormous discrepancy between the number of GPs per patient in different parts of the country. The inequitable distribution of national health service resources is one of the Government's worst legacies, and will be addressed as a matter of priority by a Labour Government.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) raised concerns about the conflict of interest in acute trusts that employ GPs. We share his concern, but the situation was not illuminated by the Secretary of State's explanation as to why the purchaser-provider split is blurred by health authorities employing GPs, but not by acute trusts doing the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew attention to the threat to the doctor-patient relationship posed by the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of primary care. She gave the example of PPP Healthcare, which wants to establish a base for GP services at its private hospitals in London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) raised an important issue regarding the lack of women GPs. He cited the example of the town just outside the boundaries of his constituency where there are no female GPs. Women should have the opportunity to register with female GPs if they prefer to do so, and it is quite wrong for the health service to deny them that choice.
  However, we must understand some of the issues that lie behind the recruitment difficulties. More women are entering medical school, but the family-unfriendly nature of employment in the health service often makes it difficult for women, in particular, to combine the responsibilities of rearing a family with the responsibilities of general practice. There are other outstanding issues which the Secretary of State failed to address today, that we shall pursue if the Bill is sent to Committee.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I share many of the hon. Lady's concerns about the improvements that the Bill must deliver. However, given the Secretary of State's announcement—which I think we all welcome—do the
  226
  hon. Lady and her colleagues intend to press the reasoned amendment? Do they want the Bill to fail tonight, or do they want to get it on to the statute book?
  Ms Jowell: We want to ensure that the points that we have made in our reasoned amendment are put to a vote in the House. We believe that, unless they are addressed, the Bill will be seriously weakened. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to those issues in winding up.
  In his concluding remarks, the Secretary of State mentioned that GPs who leave pilot schemes will be able to return to independent contractor status. We welcome that assurance, which will undoubtedly reassure GPs who wish to participate in pilot schemes. However, we were concerned by the Secretary of State's failure to mention any protection for patients who registered for pilot schemes that were discontinued. Listening to the Secretary of State—who is now chatting to his hon. Friend the Minister for Health—one was left with the impression that patients' interests are peripheral to the Bill. That impression was strengthened by the Secretary of State's remarks about the need for consultation with patients, to which we refer in our amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out the lack of detail on the precise course that any consultation should follow. No reference was made by the Secretary of State to the need for the view of patients to be fully considered before pilot projects are established.
  In Committee—if we reach that stage—we shall pursue that issue, and shall seek an assurance from Ministers that pilot schemes will not proceed without first having been open to comment and consultation with patients. We shall also press the Government on the need for patients to be properly protected in the event of a pilot scheme being discontinued, and on the need for proper consultation with patients.
  The Secretary of State did not provide any detail on what the proposals in the Bill will do to address the crisis in NHS dentistry and to ensure that people have access to NHS dentists. Many people in the world outside would like to know what the Government intend to do. The British Dental Association found that one in three people have trouble finding an NHS dentist. There are enormous regional variations.
  When the White Paper was published, the Secretary of State remarked:
  "The last 17 years have seen … steady growth of NHS dentistry".—[Official Report, 15 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 589.]
  That glib claim shows no understanding of the real problems that many people face when trying to find an NHS dentist. He should speak to his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who admitted that it has become harder in recent years to find an NHS dentist.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the whole of the debate, so I shall not give way.
  We want the Government to explain how the proposals are intended to solve that problem.

  227
  The White Paper, "Choice and Opportunity", was welcomed for its recognition that the two-tier service engendered by the Government's reforms is unacceptable. It stated:
  "It will be important not to create inequity of resources for patients of different practices."
  Sadly, the Bill offers no safeguards to prevent that. We shall return to that matter if the Bill reaches Committee.
  The White Paper also admitted that the Tories have neglected primary care in many parts of the country. That is not a startling revelation to Opposition Members. It says:
  "The quality of service for some patient groups in some areas is not always high."
  That was another welcome admission, but again the Bill contains no proposals to end the unacceptable variations in the standard of primary care across the country.
  Other issues should be given detailed consideration. Whistle blowing was brought back into the spotlight this week by the dreadful revelations at Ashworth hospital. As independent contractors, GPs currently have the freedom to raise issues of concern on behalf of their patients. Should the Bill be passed in its current form, and should the employment of GPs become the responsibility of NHS trusts, that freedom would be curtailed. We do not believe that that would be in the interests of patients. We believe that that freedom should be preserved.
  Should the Bill reach Committee, we shall want to discuss the lack of detail on the process by which pilot projects will move to permanent schemes, and the impact of a single budget for health care with its attendant risks, to which a number of hon. Members referred.
  This may be the final debate on health in this Parliament: it certainly will be if the Government have their way. The Bill provides a building block, and in part we welcome that. The manner of its management in the other place, and the Secretary of State's announcement today, constitute an extraordinary climbdown. The Government wanted to privatise general practice, but they realised that they could not get away with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made it clear that amendments were withdrawn on Report in the other place and did not reappear on Third Reading, without any adequate explanation. We have now had a major climbdown by the Secretary of State. Given the chaotic management of the Bill, we believe that, before it goes to Standing Committee, consultation should be held with professional interests and groups that will be directly affected. That is an important part of ensuring that the legislation will work in practice.
  In essence, the Bill is a long-overdue response to problems of the Government's own making. The British Medical Association has said:
  "GP morale is at its lowest ebb for many years, is caused by excessive workload, the continuing out of hours burden, too much bureaucracy and falling remuneration relative to comparable professions".
  It is because those problems have been ignored for so long that there is now an acute shortage of GPs in so many areas.
  As my hon. Friends have made clear, there is much in the White Paper and the Bill that we welcome, but—as careful reading of, in particular, the White Paper reveals—it is a very quiet and muted apology for the damage that
  228
  the Government have done to the national health service. It comes at the tail end of a Parliament, before a general election that we hope will produce a Labour Government—a Labour Government who will use the acceptable parts of the legislation to rebuild primary care, and to rebuild a national health service in the interests of patients and of all the people of this country.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) with some interest. I am glad that the Bill is broadly supported by the House; indeed, the hon. Lady claimed that it was long overdue. It is somewhat unusual in such circumstances for the Labour party to table a reasoned amendment that would deny the Bill a Second Reading, and I cannot quite square that with what has been said.
  Having heard both the hon. Lady's speech and that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), as well as supporting speeches from other Opposition Members, I think it was clear that they were straining to highlight issues that divide the House, when there was a general consensus on the principles of the Bill—although, of course, we shall have to address certain issues in Committee.
  I do not think that the hon. Lady made a terribly good job of distancing her party from what the Government are trying to do. She does herself no credit by trying to raise scares, and trying to elevate issues that were, perhaps, always at the periphery of what was happening as we introduced the legislation to a central position that they never held. I am delighted to be able to say that there is a great deal of consensus between the Government and the medical profession, whose members consider the Bill necessary. [Interruption.] We are hearing the normal sedentary interventions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). If he had been here to listen to the debate, he would have found that many of his hon. Friends broadly welcomed the Bill.
  Let me return for a moment to the genesis of the proposal. Primary care has served the country well since the national health service was brought into being in the late 1940s. It has had an honourable career for some 50 years, but during those 50 years, it has largely remained unchanged: it is still delivered in the same form as when it was first introduced. Those who read the original document advising patients what to do to register with a general practitioner back in 1948 will note that the sonorities are the same—and that, moreover, the details are the same.
  A truth has been acknowledged by all the professionals who provide the primary health care team: a truth that is certainly recognised by the Government and, perhaps somewhat grudgingly, by the Labour party. Although Labour Members may now have been converted to some of the principles in the Government's proposals, I do not recall their initiating a debate such as this when they had the opportunity to do so in government. The truth is that this is a service that needs to change. Things have moved on; the ability to deliver primary care has developed, and the various roles of the primary health care teams have changed. Those teams want to perform in a different way, and the Bill, together with the White Paper, takes the debate forward by light years.

  229
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I have had the benefit of going around the country listening to the ideas of all the primary health care professionals about how to take the service forward. I enjoyed that exercise. The Bill has been largely formed not by what Ministers thought should happen to primary care, but on the principles that were set out by primary health care professionals. I pay tribute to all those who were involved in the listening exercise and the exercise that followed it. Much hard work was put into it. I pay tribute both to every professional who attended and to officials in the Department and all the regions, who have been working vigorously to make the Bill a proposal that is fit to come before the House and be put into legislation over such a length of time.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich made a point about NHS dentistry, which was not referred to in great detail in the debate, but which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). The answer to her question is that the Bill will provide, should dentists choose to use it, an entirely new and more flexible option of contracting with health authorities to provide dental health care. It was extremely unfair of her to quote selectively from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said about NHS dentistry. It is true that, in recent years, the overall volume of dentistry provided through the NHS has increased. It is also true that the number of dentists providing that treatment has increased, but the Government have never shied away from the proposition that, in certain regions, there are difficulties in the provision of NHS dentistry, which will be tackled through the Bill and through new arrangements.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Very quickly, may I support what my hon. Friend says? When there was a problem in my constituency in the village of Poynton and we made out an excellent case for the appointment of a salaried dentist by the family health service authority, as it was then, there was no problem in getting a salaried dentist appointed to ensure that dentistry was available under the NHS in my constituency.
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that. That has happened in other ways, not least the access fund that was put in place by the Government last year and which we hope to develop.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked about GPs being employed in acute hospitals. Associated with that is the question of why we have suggested that they should not be employed by health authorities. Of course it is a recognised principle, which will hold if any arrangements are to be approved, that, if a scheme comes forward for approval, especially at the pilot stage, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and an apparent conflict of interest is set within the scheme, it would not be approved. However, it would be foolish to rule that out in principle.
  If Labour Members chose, as I suppose that many of them do, to consider local hospitals, particularly accident and emergency departments and some of the admissions wards, where GP provision is increasing, they would find that GPs' occasional involvement in the acute sector is
  230
  extremely important. There should be mechanisms in the Bill to allow that to happen, if it is appropriate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked for a specific example of why that freedom needed to be kept in the Bill. That is a good reason why. Health authorities employing GPs would undermine the authorities' role as holders of the stage between all providers of health care. That is an important principle. Health authorities' role as arbiter would be weakened if they were to become a regular provider as well as a purchaser.
  Mr. Burden: Will the Minister of State give way?
  Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way just now. I may give way later if I reach the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, if there is a defined and specific need, there is existing power in the legislation to deal with that.
  On consultation and pilot proposals, I can assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that we expect the existing requirement for health authorities to consult community health councils and therefore patient representatives to remain in place. Of course we expect consultation to be carried out as widely as possible.
  One thing I never quite understand about the Opposition is that they keep saying that the health service is too bureaucratic and castigating us for that, yet they always seek to build every last detail and possibility into primary legislation. Primary legislation should be about overall responsibilities and principles. In the health service, we are well accustomed to developing guidance that flows from primary legislation.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and other Labour Members asked about nurses' ability to make proposals as doctors and dentists do. Conservative Members have always said that nurses are key members of the primary health care team. Nurses have a role to play in future developments in primary care, and we recently gave expression to that belief in the proposals in our White Paper "Delivering the Future". We will ensure that the changes that we intend to make to the Bill allow nurses to play a full part in the new arrangements.
  Although it was perhaps slightly off the subject of the Bill, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made a point on paramedics. I should like to respond to that point—as the matter has recently been in the news—and make the position clear. There are a number of ways in which an unqualified person who turns up in an ambulance—on which he has attached a blue light and stripes, after having bought himself a yellow jacket—would find himself at some risk if he tried to provide patient care. If he were unqualified and did not hold a statutory certificate from the Secretary of State, he could be guilty of assault and subject to criminal charges. If he pretends to be medically qualified, he would fall foul of the Medical Act 1983. If he gives drugs to a patient, he would fall foul the Medicines Act 1968. So I hope that we can put to rest any possible doubts on that matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) rightly referred to the widening scope of services that are now being performed in primary care. That is of course one of the principles upon which we will be building with this legislation, and it will open up many frontiers for the future.

  231
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims), and particularly the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), mentioned a point about pre-registration house officers and section 12 of the Medical Act 1983, and I listened extremely carefully to them. Although I do not want to give a specific undertaking during this debate, I understand that it is very important that training of future general practitioners takes place in the very best context.
  That is a matter that we have been discussing—in the context of wider reforms and perhaps of other legislation—with the General Medical Council. If it is possible to meet the concerns of my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman while being satisfied about the type of training provided, I will try to do so. If at all possible, I will attempt to table an amendment in Committee to deal with that important point.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for his broad support for the Bill. He asked a question about pilots having a minimum time. Although I think that it is right that there should be a maximum time—which we have agreed to set in the legislation—it is difficult to determine the purpose of a minimum time. We will be developing evaluation criteria in wide consultation with the professions, and of course it will be necessary that a reasonable period is set. However, it is not right to set a specific minimum, whether it is 18 months or 12 months, because it should be based on principles.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) made a very good constituency speech in which he mentioned all the excellent developments—which can now perhaps be introduced more widely—that fundholding has brought to his constituency. The entire purpose of this legislation is to latch on to innovations that have occurred in fundholding—whereby GPs have been purchasing acute care with great innovation, harnessing that technique and applying it to primary care. He also asked for an assurance that health authorities would not be able to stifle schemes. That is why the legislation specifically provides that any scheme proposed by a general practitioner or NHS interest comes to my right hon. Friend Secretary of State and is not blocked.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) spoke of his concern about equity, although he conceded that fairness is being introduced since we started examining health allocations across the country. He complained about the pace of the reallocations, but everyone does. Those who lose on reallocations think that change is probably happening too quickly, whereas those who are potential gainers think that it is too slow. However, we must be careful when considering cash allocations to GP practices. The valid point was made by a Labour Member—I cannot remember who—that it is difficult to make an allocation on the small population of a GP practice base. We have to proceed, but we must do so with care. I am happy to take on board the principle of equitable distribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett—Bowman) was right to point to the strength of the pilot approach. She also talked about the role that can be played by pharmacists and nurses. That will be reinforced in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) is experienced in these matters. I was pleased to have his general support for the legislation and for the Bill's
  232
  concept. Perhaps we will be able to examine some of his concerns should he be fortunate enough to serve on the Committee.
  Some of my other hon. Friends supported the legislation and I welcome that. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said that he came to praise the Bill. That seemed to be the general approach of the Opposition and I wish that they would translate that approach into specific action in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way, as I have only a short time left.
  I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South. He never lets a change of circumstances ruin a well-prepared speech. He spoke about a nightmare—his nightmare was Asda. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was going a little too far when he said that arms dealers would be taking over primary care. Mr. Colin Brown of The Independent has a lot to answer for. He raised that hare at the outset of the debate on the Bill and it just shows that there has been concentration on the periphery of what the Bill is about. It is best that we now get down to the substance.
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Malone: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I do not intend to give way. He can take me to task later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) spoke about the role of community nurses and local flexibility, which is exactly what the Bill is about. He made an important point about the attractions of primary care and what the Bill would do for that.
  Underpinning the entire debate are a number of firm principles. Primary care must be for patients. It must provide the best service, as close to patients as possible and in the best possible circumstances. It is also about the provision of a satisfying career for those who provide primary care—whether they are doctors, nurses, midwives or practice staff. We have paved the way towards recognising their role with the provision of practice staff pensions. They must be able to fulfil their aspirations by providing care in a way that was not possible previously.
  The Bill is about the detail set out in the White Paper. It is about recruitment and improving prospects for education. As I went, around the country, I heard the message that, with primary care developing as quickly as it was, it was essential that there should be more training and research in primary care. That point was mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House and we have responded to it. We want to make the primary care environment a place in which people will be proud to practice and in which they can deliver standards of care to which they could only aspire some time ago.
  What is most important is the simple message that these are voluntary principles. For anybody who is hoping to take up part I arrangements when the Bill reaches the statute book, I want to place firmly on the record the fact that this is voluntary. Anybody who chooses not to participate in the new arrangements will be able to move back to the arrangements with which they are familiar. That is the principle on which we have approached the Bill.

  233
  We have listened to what the professions have had to say and have iterated that in the legislation which we will now take forward. Primary care has served the country well for 50 years. It is time for a new generation of primary care to take that jewel in the crown of the national health service through to the next century. That will be done by the medical professions—doctors, nurses and all those who support them. It will be done by the Bill, which I am delighted to commend to the House.
  I am sorry that the Opposition cannot reflect what was said by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood who came to praise the Bill. Opposition Members tried to do that, but they are determined to oppose it tonight. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 314.

  Division No. 73]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Ashton, Joseph

  Dafis, Cynog

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bell, Stuart

  Denham, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Rt Hon Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Byers, Stephen

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fraser, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  George, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Connarty, Michael

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Graham, Thomas

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Grocott, Bruce

  234

  Gunnell, John

  Morns, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug

  Murphy, Paul

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, Bill

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

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

  Pike, Peter L

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Keen, Alan

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Salmond, Alex

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Snape, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Touhig, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Trickett, Jon

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michael, Alun

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Miller, Andrew

  Watson, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Moriey, Elliot

  235

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ms Angela Eagle.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Faber, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boswell, Tim

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Gill, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Butler, Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butterfill, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Couchman, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  236

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Horam, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, David

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knox, Sir David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kynoch, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Legg, Barry

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Mariow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  237

  Tracey, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Trend, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilshire, David

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Sebastian Coe and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 312.

  Division No. 74]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joseph

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbett, Robin

  Barren, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Beggs, Roy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Berry, Roger

  Dafis, Cynog

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Denham, John

  Burden, Richard

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Byers, Stephen

  Dixon, Rt Hon Don

  Caborn, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Eastham, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ennis, Jeff

  238

  Etherington, Bill

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Galbraith, Sam

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  George, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Meacher, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Meale, Alan

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harvey, Nick

  Morley, Elliot

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morns, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Moms, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Murphy, Paul

  Hoey, Kate

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Hara, Edward

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

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Reid, Dr John

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Salmond, Alex

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  239

  Simpson, Alan

  Touhig, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wallace, James

  Snape, Peter

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  Watson, Mike

  Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Straw, Jack

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Amess, David

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Congdon, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bates, Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bowis, John

  Dunn, Bob

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brazier, Julian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Elletson, Harold

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burns, Simon

  Evennett, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butcher, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butterfill, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  240

  Forth, Eric

  Legg, Barry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Leigh, Edward

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Luff, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marland, Paul

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mates, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Merchant, Piers

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawksley, Warren

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Horam, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurt, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, David

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knox, Sir David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kynoch, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  241

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tredinnick, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trend, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Trotter, Neville

  Soames, Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spring, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sproat, Iain

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stem, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stewart, Allan

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Sebastian Coe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PRIMARY CARE) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by Health Authorities or Health Boards in consequence of any provision of the Act about the making of payments of financial assistance for preparatory work, and

  (b) any other increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed 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 Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    UNESCO
    10.29 pm
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The petition is from members and supporters of the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It addresses the present Government's position on UNESCO—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The petition, which has 6,135 signatures, reads as follows:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
    The Humble Petition of the People of the United Kingdom sheweth:
    that we wish to register our deep concern at the Government's prolonged delay in resuming membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), thereby denying many UK individual citizens and professional and intellectual organisations essential participation in vital multilateral and bilateral cooperation in education, science, culture and communications at international level;
    that the strengthening of the UN and its Specialised Agencies, through universality of membership, is fundamental for collective security; and while the UK (a permanent member of the Security Council) ignores its international obligations by continuing to stay out of UNESCO, the spirit of the UN Charter and the closely related UNESCO Constitution remain seriously weakened.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray That your honourable House proceed and urge the Government to announce its decision to rejoin UNESCO and to start negotiations on all relevant details.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray, &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

Sally-Anne Messenger
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
10.31 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: This is the sort of Adjournment debate that most hon. Members never like to introduce, simply because it involves deceit, lies, a cover-up and the unnecessary death of a young child.
Sally-Anne Messenger, my constituent, was born on 17 October 1992 and she was diagnosed as having Sandhoff's disease. The lifespan of someone with Sandhoff's disease is short, and they are usually expected to live only to late childhood or adolescence. In March 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Messenger took Sally-Anne to the United States of America to attend a hospital there that specialises in this disorder. It was confirmed there that Sally-Anne was suffering from mild symptoms and that she was coping particularly well with the disorder. Sally-Anne was due to return to the hospital in 1995, and it was hoped that she would be accepted to undergo clinical trials.
In 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Messenger purchased a holiday in Kos. The party consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Messenger, their two children and Mrs. Noble, the children's grandmother. At the same time, they purchased travel insurance through Intertravel Group plc. The insurance company was aware of Sally-Anne's condition before entering into the policy of insurance. The policy is quite standard and makes provision for the event of an insured person falling ill and requiring hospitalisation while on holiday. The medical insurers are Chubb Insurance, a member of the Association of British Insurers.
Before their departure, Mr. and Mrs. Messenger took Sally-Anne to their general practitioner, who confirmed that she was well enough to travel. The party departed on 8 October 1994 and arrived on Cos at about 6.45 on 9 October. They then had a long coach journey lasting about three hours. On Monday 10 October, Sally-Anne fell seriously ill. The Messengers took advice from a British doctor in the hotel and he gave them some medicine—but, quite honestly, it simply did not work, so Sally-Anne was taken to the local hospital. She was taken to the Kos hospital by taxi on the advice of the people named on the insurance claims form.
The doctors informed Mr. Messenger that Sally-Anne was dangerously ill and needed to go to Athens children's hospital. Mr. Messenger stated that he wanted to take her home to a UK hospital, but they told him that she would not make the journey. An Air Tours representative arrived at the hospital, and an aircraft was arranged to transfer Sally-Anne to Athens hospital.
Mr. Messenger returned to his hotel to collect his passport and money. Sally-Anne and Mrs. Noble went to Kos airport in an ambulance. Mr. Messenger met Sally-Anne at the airport. He was transported by the Air Tours representative. One can assume that the flight was arranged by agents appointed by the insurers. On arrival at Kos airport, Mr. Messenger asked the doctor who travelled with Sally-Anne in the ambulance how she was. He said that she had stopped convulsing and was now stable. Sally-Anne, Mr. Messenger and the doctor flew from Kos to Athens on Olympic Airways.
244
At Athens, an ambulance was provided to collect them from the airport and to take them to St. Sophia Athens district general hospital. There Sally-Anne was given medication, and an intravenous drip was set up. Mr. Messenger informed the hospital staff of her pre-existing condition. There was very little communication from them regarding her condition, and he was never asked to consent to any specific type of treatment.
Investigations were made. The emergency medical services may have been International Assistance Service or Athens Assist—it does not really matter. In any event, a representative from one of those agencies contacted Mr. Messenger and informed him that a doctor would be instructed to examine Sally-Anne on behalf of the insurance company.
Mr. Messenger contacted the emergency services to ask whether the rest of the family could join him in Athens so that they could be with Sally-Anne. He was informed that only the cost of his wife coming to Athens would be met by the insurance policy. Even though Mr. Messenger explained that Mrs. Messenger could not travel without her daughter because she was on the same passport, the insurance company was adamant that it could fund only the cost of Mr. Messenger travelling to Athens.
Sally-Anne was under observation in hospital. Mr. Messenger was not asked to take any decisions regarding her treatment. Sally-Anne's convulsions had been controlled and he understood that she was being treated for a respiratory tract infection.
On the evening of 14 October 1994, Mr. Messenger received a call from Athens Assist, informing him that he and Sally-Anne could now return to Kos and complete their holiday, or Sally-Anne could be repatriated to the UK to be admitted to a local hospital for further observation. Obviously—and sensibly—Mr. Messenger did not consider that Sally-Anne was well enough to travel to Kos to complete her holiday, and chose the safer option of having her repatriated to the UK and admitted to a local hospital for further observation.
Athens Assist arranged the flight. Mr. Messenger had no part in making any of the arrangements for Sally-Anne's repatriation, but was entirely in the hands of the insurance company. He was informed by the insurer's representatives that he would be leaving at midnight. He was not informed of any special arrangement that had been made.
Mr. Messenger telephoned his wife to inform her that they were leaving for England that night. He then informed the doctors who were on duty. They expressed surprise and did not appear to be aware that Sally-Anne was being repatriated to England. They asked Mr. Messenger whether he was going to have a medical escort. Mr. Messenger said that he did not know—no one had told him what the arrangements were. The doctors appeared concerned. They gave Mr. Messenger rectal valium and a syringe and advised him to use it if Sally-Anne had convulsions during the flight. It should not be forgotten that he had never administered that sort of treatment to his little girl before.
The story gets worse. One of the doctors then wrote out a letter in Greek and gave it to Mr. Messenger to give to the receiving doctor in England. Mr. Messenger and Sally-Anne were driven by car to Athens airport, as arranged by Athens Assist. They had to wait for one and a half hours at the airport before boarding the flight.

245
Sally-Anne was clearly unwell. Although stabilised, she was unresponsive and very poorly. Mr. Messenger and Sally-Anne were allocated two seats on a charter flight—it was not a medical flight. The flight staff did not appear to know that they were carrying a sick, if not terminally sick, passenger until they saw Sally-Anne and expressed concern about how poorly she looked. On seeing her condition, one of the air hostesses offered Mr. Messenger additional seats so that Sally-Anne could lie down.
On arrival at Gatwick airport, Mr. Messenger and Sally-Anne had to go through customs in the usual way, even though she was terminally ill. Mr. Messenger had to ask a member of the airport staff to look after Sally-Anne while he collected his luggage. They were met by a car with a paramedic, and Sally-Anne was taken to Princess Alexandra hospital in my constituency. She was admitted to that hospital on 15 October. On 16 October, Sally-Anne began to have breathing difficulties. She was intubated and ventilated and then transferred to the intensive care unit. That same evening, she was transferred to St. Mary's intensive care unit in London.
On arrival at St. Mary's, Mr. Messenger contacted his wife to tell her to come home immediately, because Sally-Anne was critically ill. He also contacted IAS to inform the company of the situation. I shall not go into the details of the appalling problems that Mrs. Messenger had in getting a flight home. She got a flight home at 12.40 am. In the meantime, Mr. Messenger had been informed that Sally-Anne had severe neurological failure. A CT scan confirmed that she had a grossly swollen brain and raised intracranial pressure. Mr. Messenger was anxious for his wife to arrive and contacted IAS to find out when she would be arriving. During the telephone conversation, it became apparent that IAS had arranged for Mrs. Messenger to be driven to Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow. Mr. Messenger explained that Sally-Anne had been transferred to St. Mary's in Paddington.
Despite aggressive treatment at St. Mary's, additional tests confirmed that brain stem death had occurred and that nothing further could be done. By the time Mrs. Messenger arrived, Sally-Anne was clinically dead. Obviously, that was extremely distressing. Mrs. Messenger had not been at the side of her dying child for a week, because of the insurance company's actions.
Initially, Mr. and Mrs. Messenger submitted a claim under their insurance policy for compensation for the curtailment of the holiday. The claim was met without dispute. However, as time went on, they began to ask questions. They wondered what could have happened to Sally-Anne, the little girl they loved and who had died. Investigations were made—at the expense of my constituents. I hope that they will forgive me for saying so, but they are not wealthy people. They are decent, ordinary people. Mrs. Messenger has pawned her jewellery. There is nothing on the walls in their house and they have no stereo, because they have spent all their money trying to find out what happened to their little girl.
I am coming to the most disgusting aspect of this case. The investigations showed that the system that is triggered on notifying the emergency number in the insurance policy appears to be that the IAS, which is based in the United Kingdom, appoints agents in Athens—in this case, Athens Assist—to obtain information and make any necessary arrangements, acting on instructions from IAS.
246
IAS states that it has its own medical advisers based in the UK, who liaise closely with the doctors treating their insured before making any decisions about the insured's treatment or repatriation. IAS, in turn, takes instructions from its principal, Chubb Insurance, before committing any financial support. The bottom line is that any treatment or repatriation requiring expenditure under the policy must be authorised by IAS and Chubb.
In Sally-Anne's case, we understand that IAS instructed Athens Assist to deal with matters at the Greek end. Athens Assist in turn instructed a Greek doctor to liaise with Sally-Anne's treating doctors, to ascertain her condition and to report back. The doctor did not liaise with the hospital. We do not believe that there was ever any direct discussion between the medical staff at IAS and the treating doctors at Athens hospital. As regards the treatment that Sally-Anne received in Athens hospital, the House will appreciate that that is a different matter for litigation.
One must ask what requests for treatment were made to IAS. What instructions did IAS give regarding any request for treatment? It is apparent that a CT scan was never carried out. We do not know the reason, but it is possible that the treating doctors decided that a scan was no longer necessary, or that IAS indicated that it would not fund the cost. The CT scan was vital to assess Sally-Anne's neurological condition properly. If it had been performed earlier, treatment could have been available that might have saved the little girl's life.
We have obtained extracts from the medical reports, but I shall not go into the details: they are contradictory, if not downright fraudulent.
The little girl was repatriated to England. A number of questions must be asked. First, who made the decision that Sally-Anne should return to Kos? In the course of the investigations, the insurers disclosed copies of faxes that they received from Athens Assist. It is noteworthy that they did not disclose copies of the faxes detailing their instructions to Athens Assist.
It would appear that, on 13 October 1994, IAS received a fax from Athens Assist stating that Sally-Anne had been stabilised, that her spasms were due to her main disease—which is untrue—and that the prognosis was that she could be discharged in two days' time to continue her holiday on Kos island. On 14 October 1994, Athens Assist faxed IAS with the information that Sally-Anne remained on medication and required a further 10 days' monitoring in the hospital.
At the same time, Athens Assist requested instructions regarding repatriation. Mr. and Mrs. Messenger were informed orally by a member of staff at Athens Assist that a Dr. Hamid from IAS instructed that Sally-Anne should be discharged and returned to Kos. Those instructions caused concern, as further information received suggested that Sally-Anne was too ill to return to Kos and required further monitoring in hospital.
At some point, instructions were received via Athens Assist that Sally-Anne could be repatriated. We understand that instructions were given over the telephone, and not committed to fax. There must have been a breakdown in communication, as the message given to Mr. Messenger was that he could return to Kos with Sally-Anne or that she could be repatriated to a hospital in the UK. Confronted with such a bizarre choice

247
and under terrible pressure, Mr. Messenger chose the safer option—for Sally-Anne to be repatriated to their local hospital and eventually that she should go to Paddington.
I will now deal with the mode of transfer to the UK. The decision was reached by IAS, which states that the decision was made by its medical advisers following close liaison with the treating doctors, but no evidence has been disclosed to us to support that. The implications are to the contrary, and the cynical conclusion that we must draw—we have it in writing—is that a decision regarding a dying child was reached on purely economic grounds, based on a false belief that Sally-Anne's symptoms were due to a pre-existing condition which was fatal in any event. The insurance company appears to have taken the view that the mode of transportation would make little difference to her condition.
In contrast, Athens hospital states that Mr. Messenger gave an assurance that the insurance company had arranged a special flight with a medical escort. That was not true. Needless to say, Mr. Messenger did not provide that information, but it suggests that there was no direct and meaningful liaison between the IAS and the treating doctors.
As to the decision to refuse to allow Mrs. Messenger and other members of the party to join Sally-Anne in Athens, the IAS simply states that no request was ever made. We understand that, if a patient is to be repatriated without a medical escort, the hospital must issue a fitness to fly certificate. Initially, IAS insisted that a certificate was issued. However, upon our pressing the point and requesting sight of the fitness to fly certificate, it eventually conceded that a certificate had not been issued.
It was then revealed that a discharge certificate had been issued by the hospital, presumably transferring the care of the patient, but no discharge certificate was among the records sent by Athens hospital or referred to in the records. Mr. and Mrs. Messenger were informed that the discharge certificate was sent to Chubb Insurance, together with the invoices and other documents relating to Sally-Anne's treatment at Athens hospital. Eventually, in the latter part of 1996, Chubb provided a copy of what it claims is the original discharge certificate. The copy is virtually illegible, and we suspect that the document is totally bogus.
It is not clear who signed the document, as the signatures cannot be distinguished. However, it is clear that Mr. Messenger is not on the certificate and, as such, he cannot be said to have consented to or authorised the discharge of his daughter into his care. Further investigations revealed that the discharge certificate was completed by a staff member at Athens Assist and signed by administrative staff at Athens hospital in 1995, months after Sally-Anne had died. Consideration was then given to the arrangements that were made with Princess Alexandra hospital in my constituency. The senior house officer on duty at the time has provided evidence that can only damage Chubb Insurance.
It has been put to the insurer that it has breached its obligations to the insured under the terms of the insurance contract. Despite the traumatic death of a tiny child, the parents' suffering and the total incompetence of the insurance company, the breach has been denied and the insurer has refused to offer compensation. Mr. and Mrs. Messenger, driven by the need to know what
248
happened to their daughter and the need to ensure that insurance companies provide proper cover, have continued to try to discover what really occurred.
I could go on and on about what has occurred with the insurance company and with the insurance ombudsman. My hon. Friend the Minister will reply to the debate in a moment. He knows the facts of the case. He knows that the insurance ombudsman appointed a lady to deal with the case. She works four days a week and she is dealing with 50 other cases. She begins work at 10.30 am and finishes at 4.30 pm. The Messengers have put themselves in hock and into debt. They are decent, honourable people who are merely trying to find out what happened to the child they loved and who died. They have been put through hell.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate what I always thought was a reputable insurance company. Most of us have Chubb locks in our homes: I thought that they were decent people, but clearly not. I ask my hon. Friend to investigate what happened with the ombudsman, who I am sure meant well. All the investigations were undertaken by my constituents, the Messengers; yet months elapsed and they were offered—not that money is important—£1,700. That is an insult.
10.55 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): No one could fail to be moved by the tragic case that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has brought to the attention of the House. We respect him for doing so, and for finding the time and the opportunity to present the case sensitively and forcefully.
Before responding to the points made by my hon. Friend on this sad and distressing case, I should like to extend my deepest sympathy to the Messenger family. To lose a child is terrible, but to do so in such circumstances and so far from home must be devastating. I must also declare straight away that I am unable to comment on some of the substance of the case because it remains unresolved and may be the subject of further legal action. I know that this will inevitably be frustrating for the Messenger family, and I am truly sorry for that, but I am bound by the constraints of law.
I have been in touch with the insurance ombudsman, and I have sought to establish the facts of the case. Since he first began to consider this case, he has received extensive evidence from both parties to the dispute, all of which has been taken into account. He has made a number of further inquiries in the light of evidence and the submissions that he received. On the basis of that evidence, he has made a number of decisions, some of which involve awards to Mr. and Mrs. Messenger. Those have been communicated to the couple.
No one is in any doubt that this has been a difficult and complicated case. The ombudsman has assured me that every effort has been made to bring the matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible. He has agreed with the Messengers that the repatriation of Sally-Anne to the United Kingdom was poorly handled. He has accepted that the child should have been accompanied by a qualified medical adviser, that the insurer's agents should have made Sally-Anne's medical notes available in English translation, and that the insurer made a number of administrative errors.

249
I cannot comment on the amount of compensation that the ombudsman has awarded, save to repeat what my hon. Friend said: no amount of money can make up for the loss of a child.
The ombudsman has also quite properly pointed out to Mr. and Mrs. Messenger that, because the case concerns the recollection of events most of which were very stressful, and because no contemporaneous record is available, it may be more appropriate to a court of law. In a court of law there is a process for discovery of documents, and witnesses must give evidence under oath and are subject to cross-examination. I do not want to add to the trauma and distress that Mr. and Mrs. Messenger have obviously experienced, but I believe that they should seek legal advice on that option, including the possibility of obtaining legal aid to pursue the matter further.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Ministers cannot intervene in the grant of legal aid in individual cases, but I can bring the points raised to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, who can request a report on the case from the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Government are reforming the legal aid scheme to target resources at the most needy and deserving cases.
I should stress that Mr. and Mrs. Messenger are in no way bound by the ombudsman's decisions. Although his decision is binding on the insurance company, which must pay compensation if it is awarded, the policyholder still has the right to pursue any dispute through the courts if it is felt that the complaint has not been adequately addressed. I should also point out that the Secretary of State has no powers to intervene in individual disputes between a policyholder and an insurance company.
250
My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the time that it has taken to resolve the dispute. I appreciate his frustration, and that of the Messenger family, over the time that it has taken to reach decisions; nevertheless, it is clear that this has not been a typical case. Indeed, the ombudsman has stated that it is one of the most distressing and complicated with which he has had to deal. His office has received no fewer than 136 pages of submission and 39 telephone calls from the Messenger family.
The voluntary scheme has one major advantage over the courts or a statutory regime: it allows the ombudsman to take a rather broader view in arriving at a decision. He is not bound by the strict letter of the law; nor is he hampered by the prospect of judicial review. Because the scheme has the support of the vast majority of the industry, the ombudsman can take a common-sense approach, which, if anything, is biased in favour of the insured party.
Time does not permit me to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend in all the detail that I would like, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. No arbitration scheme can ever hope to resolve all disputes to the satisfaction of both sides. Nevertheless, I believe that the insurance ombudsman scheme is, in general, a very good scheme, which commands the support both of the public and of the insurance industry. However, nothing that the ombudsman or anyone else could do could make up for the distress that Mr. and Mrs. Messenger have so obviously suffered. My heart goes out to them in their sorrow, and I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the case to the attention of the House in such a sensitive and forceful way. I assure him that I have taken careful note of his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Unisex Hairdresser
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to provide a unisex hairdresser in the House of Commons. [15184]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  At its meeting on 28 January, the Committee recommended that the existing barber's shop become a unisex operation. The Serjeant at Arms has been instructed to consult all interested parties, with a view to implementing the Committee's recommendation at the earliest opportunity.

DEFENCE

  Army Manpower
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has introduced to reduce the manpower shortfall in the Army. [13713]

  Mr. Soames
  We have introduced a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention in the Army. These are already having an effect, with recruitment significantly improved on last year's performance.

  Defence-related Equipment Exports
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Britain's share of the world market for exports of defence-related equipment. [13728]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Provisional figures show that exporters of British defence equipment achieved around 25 per cent. of the world market in 1996, on all-time best for British industry.

  Cadet Corps
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to encourage cadet corps in(a) schools and (b) elsewhere. [13729]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are considering ways of increasing the scope of the cadet forces to allow even more young people to benefit from voluntary membership. A thorough examination of where resources can be most effectively applied is currently under way.

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the sea cadet, Army cadet and the Air Force cadet units. [13730]

  Mr. Soames
  The current strengths of these cadet forces total 22,375 adults, and 88,780 cadets. I have placed a breakdown of these figures in the Library of the House.

  Royal Yacht
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on a replacement for the royal yacht. [13731]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of representations have been received concerning the future royal yacht, including several inquiries from industry and a substantial volume of letters from members of the public.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts valued at over £1 million have been signed on the royal yacht Britannia in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14635]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: This information is not held centrally but, as an illustrative example, during Britannia's visit to Bombay in November 1993, contracts worth £1.2 billion were signed on board.

  I should explain that while other contracts have certainly been completed aboard Britannia, the primary purpose of her export promotion activities is in initiating and fostering commercial contracts rather than providing a venue for the formal signature of contracts.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whom he consulted prior to the announcement on the replacement for the royal yacht. [13721]

  Mr. Portillo
  There were widespread consultations within Government, both at official and ministerial level, prior to the announcement on 22 January.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the commercial functions which took place on the royal yacht Britannia in each of the last three years and the companies involved; and if he will make a statement. [15010]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 10 February,Official Report, columns 2–4.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom companies made use of visits by HMY Britannia in 1996 to promote their business. [15204]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 10 February,Official Report, columns 2–4.

  Royal Navy Manpower
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the manpower of the Royal Navy on 1 April 1999. [13732]

  Mr. Soames
  It is estimated that the strength of the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, will be 44,000 on 1 April 1999.

  Ministry of Defence Estate (Ramblers)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the withdrawal of his Department's booklet in respect of the use by ramblers of the MOD estate. [13733]
  87
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 December 1996,Official Report, column 347.

  Joint Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the benefits resulting from the establishment of a joint rapid deployment force. [13734]

  Mr. Soames
  The establishment of the joint rapid deployment force has enhanced dramatically our fighting capability by creating a joint force trained and equipped to respond effectively and speedily to future crises.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to enhance the fighting capability of the Royal Navy. [13735]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 January,Official Report, column 223.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Eurofighter will be ready for service. [13736]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our intention is that the first Eurofighter will be delivered to the RAF in December 2001.

  Service Men (Retention)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to ensure that service men remain in the armed forces after marriage. [13737]

  Mr. Soames
  We fully recognise the importance of retaining married service personnel within the armed forces. Consequently, a wide range of incentives exists to retain and support service personnel who are married and who may have families. One of the most important is the provision of subsidised family accommodation that is located close to the service person's place of duty. These are usually in the form of married quarter estates, which allow service personnel and their families to live together in a safe and convenient community that is supported by voluntary welfare services. The armed forces also support home ownership by offering beneficial loans to service personnel and, in association with industry, a savings scheme and preferential mortgage package.

  Various allowances are also targeted at married service personnel and their families. These range from assistance with boarding school education for families who are most affected by frequent moves to allowances which provide financial recompense for the disturbance caused by moving and those which compensate for the extra cost of living when serving abroad.

  Chinese Military Strength
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent estimate he has made of Chinese military strength; and if he will make a statement. [13738]

  Mr. Soames
  The Chinese armed forces are the largest in the world, with a strength of about 3 million. These are being reduced in size as part of a wider modernization 88
  plan which aims to create better equipped and more mobile conventional forces and to update China's missile forces and strategic nuclear arsenal. The size of the People's Liberation Army and of the Chinese military-industrial complex none the less means that modernisation will be a selective and gradual process.

  Cruise and Pershing Missiles
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of cruise and Pershing missiles in the defence of NATO in 1983–84. [13739]

  Mr. Soames
  The introduction of cruise and Pershing missiles played an essential part in maintaining NATO's deterrent posture at a time when the Soviet Union was modernising and increasing its nuclear forces. Deployment of these systems paved the way for the successful conclusions of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty in 1987.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when United Kingdom forces last deployed land mines. [13740]

  Mr. Soames
  We do not give details of the operational deployment of mines. Any such deployments, however, would be in accordance with the international laws of armed conflict and prevailing Government policy.

  Trident Programme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme. [13741]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Trident programme continues to make good progress and remains on time and within budget. The third submarine of the class, HMS Vigilant, has been commissioned and is engaged in work-up and trials prior to entering service. The fourth boat, Vengeance, remains under construction and is due to enter service early in the next century.

  West Indies Guard Ship
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the West Indies guard ship in combating the drugs trade. [13742]

  Mr. Soames
  In addition to her other duties, the West Indian guard ship, WIGS, together with her Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker, makes a very considerable and valuable contribution to the fight against drug trafficking in the Caribbean. WIGS has in recent years been directly involved in the interception of substantial amounts of illegal drugs in the region.

  Independent Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of an independent nuclear deterrent in the defence of the United Kingdom. [13722]

  Mr. Portillo
  Our nuclear deterrent continues to provide the ultimate guarantee of this nation's security.

  Self-development Education Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to maintain at its present annual value the provision under the armed forces individual resettlement refund scheme for service men and women to participate in a self development education scheme to prepare them for return to civilian life. [15107]

  Mr. Soames
  The three services are keen for their personnel to participate in self-development education schemes. Two key measures by which service men and women are encouraged and assisted to obtain recognised skills and qualifications that will help them in their transition to civilian life are the individual refund scheme and the individual resettlement training costs grant.

  The IRS allows service personnel to claim a refund of a significant proportion of the fees for approved education—personal development courses each year throughout their service. IRS may also be used specifically for resettlement purposes within the last 30 months of service. The regulations under which the IRS may be claimed were broadened in 1996 to accommodate a wider range of educational and vocational awards such as national vocational qualifications.

  The IRTC scheme provides eligible personnel with a source of funding for resettlement purposes—for example training courses of up to four weeks—undertaken in the last nine months of an individual's service. IRS and IRTC may not be used together during the final year, unless IRS is used to help fund an examination fee for a recognised qualification in civilian life.

  We have no plans at present to revise the value of these grants but, as with all aspects of the defence budget, they are subject to review to ensure that they continue to serve their purpose in the most cost-effective manner.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement regarding the sale of Devonport dockyard; and if he will make a statement. [15249]

  Mr. Arbutnot
  I am pleased to say that we will today be signing the sale contract for Devonport Royal Dockyard PLC, DRD, with Devonport Management Ltd., DML. This document also binds DML to agreed terms and conditions on project D154, the future facilities for the provision of nuclear refuelling and refitting at Devonport.

  DML will be paying £40.3 million for the dockyard. The sale represents value for money for the taxpayer in excess of £40 million over 10 years and will transfer responsibility to DML for the provision of fully operable and licensable nuclear facilities to support Trident and other nuclear submarines into the next century. It will also provide DML and its work force with greater opportunities for commercial diversification.

  We have completed consultation with the trade unions and will complete once we have received the necessary nuclear and other authorisations.

  I am also pleased to inform the House that, following the signature of Rosyth sale contract with Babcock International Group on 12 December, which my right hon.
  90
  Friend announced to the Scottish Grand Committee on 25 November, the sale was completed on 30 January. Both these deals represent good value for money and are good news for the taxpayer.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14476]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department employs a total of 10 people in central branches to provide policy advice on the application of equal opportunities for both service and civilian personnel at a total annual salary cost of some £312,000. Additional advice is provided at working level throughout the Department and its agencies by service and civilian equal opportunities officers, many of whom undertake the task in addition to other duties. Information about the total number and cost of people employed in this latter role is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Promoting equal opportunities is something to which we attach a high priority in my Department, both among the armed forces and among civilian staff. We continue to make it clear, through policy statements and other initiatives, that this is an area where all personnel, irrespective of rank or grade, have responsibilities.

  Departmental Decisions (Judicial Review)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many decisions by his Department were challenged through judicial review in Session 1995–96; and in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [14372]

  Mr. Soames
  Five decisions were challenged through judicial review in the Session 1995–96.

  My Department's decision was upheld by the court in one case; in another case the petitioner was refused leave to move for judicial review; and, in a third, the petitioner withdrew the application, after being given leave. Two further cases had yet to be considered by the court at the end of the Session. In one of these the application for leave had not yet been heard, and in the other it was substantive application that had not yet been heard.

  There were no cases in which the court found for the applicant. There were, therefore, no cases in which the question of an appeal by my Department arose.

  NATO
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will conduct a study of the financial costs of NATO enlargement. [14778]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the communiqué issued by NATO Defence Ministers in December 1996, a copy of which is being placed in the Library. The relevant NATO authorities have been tasked to undertake military analyses and resource assessments
  91
  of the implications of NATO enlargement. Work is in hand to allow the UK to contribute fully to the continuing debate, in NATO and elsewhere.

  Policy Initiatives (Funding)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which policy initiative he has devoted most funding in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on progress with each initiative. [14668]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not available in the form requested. Details of the Department's policy initiatives are set out in successive statements on the Defence Estimates, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Research and Development (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) planned expenditure in 1997–98 and (b) actual expenditure in the most recent year for which figures are available, by his Department and its agencies on defence-related research and development and contracts in Northern Ireland in 1997–98. [13951]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Central records show that over 100 defence-related contracts were placed in Northern Ireland in 1995–96, the last year for which figures are available. Research and development expenditure is not separately identified by geographical location and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cadet Force Groups
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the curriculum of combined cadet force groups in schools. [14040]

  Mr. Soames
  The curriculum of training undertaken by cadets in contingents of the Combined Cadet Force in schools is similar to that given to members of the other three cadet organisations: the Sea Cadet Corps, Army Cadet Force and Air Training Corps.

  The syllabus consists of 60 per cent. service training and 40 per cent. adventurous training activities. Contingents normally meet weekly on a day and time determined by the head, and usually have one or two whole days training each term. Camps are arranged in school holidays.

  I have arranged for a more detailed breakdown of the syllabus to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 620–21, if he will list those locations where information on the use of the royal flight by members of the royal family is held; by whom it is held; for what purpose; and for what reasons it is not centrally collated. [15363]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on use by members of the royal family of aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron—and previously the Queen's Flight—is held by RAF Northolt and by RAF strike command at RAF High Wycombe. Unfortunately, given the format in which such 92
  data have historically been held, it would not be possible to derive the particular information originally sought without disproportionate cost.

  Service Personnel (Shortages)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he proposes to rectify current personnel shortages in the armed forces. [13717]

  Mr. Soames
  The restoration of the armed forces to full manning is one of the Government's highest priorities. We are rigorously pursuing this goal through a number of innovative recruiting and retention measures.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Refugee Camps (Thailand-Burma Border)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in respect of recent State Law and Order Restoration Council attacks on refugee camps on the Thailand-Burma border. [15197]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are concerned at reports that recent attacks by State Law and Order Restoration Council-controlled troops on refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border resulted in the deaths of at least three refugees. We regularly raise concerns about human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in Burma with the SLORC. Our ambassador in Bangkok has also raised this issue with the Thai Foreign Minister. The Government of Thailand are urgently considering ways in which to improve the security of these camps.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the United Nations to take action to protect refugee camps housing Karen and Karennis people; and if he will make a statement. [15179]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are concerned at reports that recent attacks by State Law and Order Restoration Council-controlled troops on refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border resulted in the deaths of at least three refugees. We regularly raise concerns about human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in Burma with the SLORC. Our ambassador in Bangkok has also raised this issue with the Thai Foreign Minister. The Government of Thailand are urgently considering ways in which to improve the security of these camps.

  The Thai Government have not requested assistance from the United Nations.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received relating to the withdrawal of Thai military protection from border camps housing Karen and Karennis refugees. [15183]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are concerned at reports that recent attacks by State Law and Order Restoration Council-controlled troops on refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border resulted in the deaths of at least three refugees. We regularly raise concerns about human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in Burma with the SLORC. Our ambassador in Bangkok has also raised this
  93
  issue with the Thai Foreign Minister. The Government of Thailand are urgently considering ways in which to improve the security of these camps.

  We have received no indications that the Thais are planning to withdraw military protection.

  China (Tiger Bones)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of China about the trade in tiger bones. [14998]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK and China are both parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. As vice-chairman of the CITES standing committee, the UK was instrumental in securing agreement at the committee's meeting in December 1996 that tiger range and consuming states should make further efforts to tackle this international illegal trade. China was present and supported that decision.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Remainder of lifetime of scheme

  Awarded to Kirklees MC

  Urban Programme

  1,070

  720

  370

  —

  —

  —

  Urban Partnership Fund

  —

  1,140

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Route ways to Success SRB Challenge Fund Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  890

  1,420

  6,210

  Estate Action

  2,870

  4,141

  3,030

  1,970

  2,040

  —

  English Partnerships

  898

  2,058

  2,406

  1,444

  880

  —

  Capital Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,440

  Housing Improvement Programme

  11,300

  11,700

  8,700

  9,066

  9,400

  —

  Housing Partnership Fund

  —

  —

  160

  331

  241

  —

  Flats over Shops

  —

  55

  102

  —

  —

  —

  Housing Revenue Account subsidy

  23,640

  28,201

  28,679

  28,869

  28,992

  —

  City Challenge

  —

  6,500

  8,500

  7,790

  7,210

  7,500

  SRB Challenge Fund

  —

  —

  —

  1,020

  2,720

  23,820

  English Partnerships

  611

  2,403

  —

  590

  2,838

  —

  Housing Corporation

  12,645

  12,136

  8,916

  5,019

  6,128

  —

  Housing Construction (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of(a) private, (b) council and (c) housing association properties currently under construction in each of the London borough authorities; and if he will make a statement. [14333]

  Mr. Clappison
  The publication, "Local Housing Statistics" shows estimates of the number of new dwellings under construction, by sector, for each local authority area in England. This includes all the London boroughs. The figures shown are as reported to the Department, either in the most recent quarter, or as projected up to the most recent quarter using reported housebuilding starts and completions information. The figures cover only new build, they do not cover properties under construction in the course of the rehabilitation of existing buildings.

  Israel
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the conclusion of the United States presidential commission on aviation security and terrorism in respect of Juval Avir's employment by the intelligence service of the state of Israel. [13937]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 3 February 1997]: Mr. Aviv is not mentioned in the report of the President's commission on aviation security and terrorism of 15 May 1990.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the central Government funding, other than rate support grant payments awarded to(a) Kirklees council and (b) other bodies within the Kirklees area for each year since 1992. [14237]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Funding from my Department—including funding through the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships—is provided in the following table:

  Table 1 of "Local Housing Statistics" issue number 118 provides the most recent published figures. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Children's Services (Merseyside)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reinstate the funding withdrawn from the area cost adjustment for children's services in Merseyside in April 1994. [14502]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend announced in the House on 3 February that we intend to undertake further work on the area cost adjustment and the standard spending assessment for children's social services during 1997. We will consider whether any changes are required in the light of that work.

  Local Government Finance (Social Index)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the social index in determining the Government's allocation of funding to local authorities. [14503]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The social index is one of the indicators used to allocate the sub-block of the all other services standard spending assessment for services provided predominantly by non-metropolitan district

  Other personal social services

  £ per head

  Population aged 18–64

  Other social services index

  Morbidity

  Area cost

  Other PSS total SSA

  Harrow

  19

  4

  8

  3

  34

  Bournemouth

  18

  3

  10

  0

  31

  Richmond

  20

  1

  7

  3

  31

  Knowsley

  18

  -1

  17

  0

  34

  Liverpool

  19

  -1

  17

  0

  34

  Sefton

  18

  -4

  12

  0

  26

  St. Helens

  19

  -5

  15

  0

  29

  Wirral

  18

  -3

  12

  0

  27

  District level all other services

  £ per head

  Enhanced population

  Population density

  Social index

  Economic index

  Population sparsity

  Area cost

  District services total SSA

  Harrow

  74

  22

  7

  -6

  0

  11

  109

  Bournemouth

  81

  19

  5

  2

  0

  0

  109

  Richmond

  76

  25

  1

  -7

  1

  10

  106

  Knowsley

  77

  22

  -1

  23

  2

  0

  124

  Liverpool

  80

  31

  -1

  24

  0

  0

  135

  Sefton

  77

  20

  -7

  4

  1

  0

  95

  St. Helens

  76

  18

  -7

  6

  2

  0

  94

  Wirral

  75

  20

  -5

  7

  1

  0

  98

  Rows may not sum to totals due to rounding

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in respect of the assumed level and costs of capital expenditure referred to in paragraphs 4.59 to 4.61 of the "Local Government Finance Report (Surplus) 1997–98", HC 203 of 1996–97, he will state the mathematical basis used in respect of the assumed amounts referred to in each paragraph. [14591]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The basis for calculating assumed outstanding debt at 1 April 1990 was set out in appendix 1 to annex VII of "Standard Spending Assessments: Background and Underlying Methodology", published by the Department of the Environment in 1990. A copy of this document was made available in the Library.

  A description of the basic and supplementary credit approval data used in calculating standard spending assessments is given on pages 64 and 65 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98" (HC203). Pages 63 and 64 of the report describe how credit approval information for years prior to 1997–98 has been used to derive the estimate of assumed outstanding debt at 1 April 1997. Further information is given in "Standard Spending Assessments: Specification of Indicators for 1997–98", a copy of which is in the Library.
  96
  Councils in non-metropolitan areas. A similar index is used to allocate the other social services sub-block of the personal social services standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the impact of the social index on the allocation of funding to(a) Harrow, (b) Bournemouth, (c) Richmond and (d) Merseyside. [14504]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The social index is one of the indicators used in two elements of the standard spending assessments: other personal social services; and other services. The amounts allocated by each of the components of these formulae are given in the table.

  The formula for calculating the assumed cost of financing capital expenditure is set out in paragraph 4.64 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98". The interest rate used in the calculation is defined on page 64 of the report.

  Additional information on the calculation of the SSA element for capital financing, including a sample calculation, was provided in chapter 8 of "Standard Spending Assessments: Guide to Methodology 1996–97", published by the Department of the Environment in 1996. A copy of this document is in the Library.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the link between decreasing population and relative local economic decline; and what account is taken of that link in the standard spending assessment forumla. [14506]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have not made any recent assessment of the link between decreasing population and relative local economic decline. There is no explicit indicator of such an effect in the standard spending assessment formulae. However, the formulae include the population of the local authority and indicators of economic deprivation, which might reflect any such an effect.

  Children's Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to implement the recommendations of the York university study into ethnicity and the cost of children's services. [14501]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of Health plans to take forward York university's work on the standard spending assessment for children's social services during 1997.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recognition is made in the Government's allocation of funding to local authorities of the provision by some authorities of universal nursery education; and if he will make a statement. [14505]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The element of the standard spending assessment related to the education of under-fives is based on the resident population aged 0 to four an indicator of additional educational needs, adjustments for variations in cost and boundary changes, and a deduction related to the number of four-year-olds in local authority provision in a recent year. The SSA formulae are the subject of discussions each year with representatives of local government.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned into the effect of the area cost adjustment on social service provision for(a) children and (b) the elderly; what conclusions were reached in such research; and what proposals he has for changes as a result of that research. [14507]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I commissioned an independent review of the area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessment during 1996. It proposed a new method of calculating area cost adjustments which could be used for all local authority services. The review's proposals were not implemented for 1997–98 SSAs. Further work to consider the concerns that remain about the area cost adjustment will be carried out during 1997.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 February,Official Report, column 677, what assumptions underlay his provision of a 3.6 per cent. increase in education spending. [14793]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In deciding each year on appropriate levels of total standard spending in each of the main service blocks—including education—we take into account the spending pressures facing local authorities as well as the scope for efficiency savings and what the country as a whole can afford. We discuss these spending pressures with representatives from local government. Local spending decisions, however, are entirely a matter for individual local authorities which have considerable freedom to decide on their own priorities in the light of local circumstances.

  E. coli
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the incidence of E. coli in drinking water supplies in England and Wales during the latest three years for which information is available; what research has been carried out to isolate the E. coli strain 98
  which caused the recent deaths in Scotland; what assessment he has made of whether the E. coli strain in Scotland is the same as that found in water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [14592]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are various strains or serogroups of Escherichia coli—E. coli—bacteria, most of which are unlikely to cause infection in humans. A variety of E. coli strains are present in the faeces of almost all human beings and warm-blooded animals but the incidence of the strain associated with the recent deaths in Scotland—known as 0157—is rare although it has been isolated from cattle in the UK. E. coli in general are used as indicator organisms in checking that drinking water is free from contamination.

  Water quality regulations require water companies to test for a group of bacteria known as faecal coliforms which include E. coli. The majority of faecal coliforms reported by water companies will be E. coli but there is no requirement to test specifically for this organism. Whenever faecal coliform bacteria are detected in water supplies, precautionary action is taken, usually through the issue of an advice to boil water notice. The figures for the number of times that faecal coliform bacteria have been found in compliance samples taken in water supply zones in England and Wales is as follows:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Number of tests

  164,241

  159,869

  156,306

  Percentage in which faecal coliforms detected

  0.1

  <0.1

  <0.1

  The drinking water inspectorate has promoted research to ensure that an effective method of detecting E. coli 0157 in water is available.

  All public drinking water supplies in England and Wales are disinfected at the water treatment works and all strains of E. coli are destroyed by adequate disinfection. The drinking water inspectorate checks on a sample basis that adequate disinfection is in place and investigates any disinfection failures.

  Social Landlords
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority(a) total central Government funding in 1997–98 for registered social landlords' housing programmes, (b) the total number of new lettings that this funding will generate, (a) the estimated number of new lettings that registered social landlords will be able to provide with funding received in 1997–98 from local government and (d) the estimated number of new lettings that would be needed in order to achieve a national target of 60,000 new lettings annually; and if he will make a statement. [14628]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing Corporation will publish in April full details by local authority area of its expenditure allocations for 1997–98 and the number of new lettings which this will generate under the approval development programme. In the meantime I have arranged for a summary table of expenditure allocations by local authority area to be placed in the Library of the House. My Department does not produce estimates by local authority area of the number of new lettings which registered social landlords will be able to provide with funding received from local government of the number of
  99
  new lettings which would be required in order to achieve a national figure of 60,000 new lettings annually. Over the decade 1991–92 to 2000–01 I expect new social lettings on current plans to be in the range of 58,000 to 60,000 per annum, in line with our estimates of housing need.

  Unoccupied Housing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number and percentage of private sector properties for each district council in England which have been unoccupied for longer than six months. [14689]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England are requested to provide information on the number of private sector properties within the authority that are unoccupied, together with the number that have been vacant for more than 12 months. Data are not specifically collected on the numbers of properties unoccupied for more than six months.

  The latest available figures relate to the position on 1 April 1996 and are given in the 1996 "HIP 1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Multiple Occupation Housing (Fire Risks)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned on fire risks in houses in multiple occupation; by which organisations the research is to be carried out; under what terms of reference; from whom evidence will be taken on this matter; and when the outcome of the research programme will be available to him [14814]

  Mr. Clappison
  In December 1996, Entec (UK) Ltd. was awarded a research contract to undertake a study of the fire risk associated with different types of houses in multiple occupation—HMOSs. This contract followed a feasibility study carried out earlier in the year by the fire research station of the Building Research Establishment. The terms of reference for the research are to identify the factors which are most likely to cause fires in HMOSs, and those factors which increase or decrease the likelihood of death and injury arising from such fires. The initial stages of the research sought evidence from local authorities and others with an interest in HMOSs and fire safety. The main evidence will be gathered about from about 90 case studies in which the views of relevant fire brigades will be sought. Entec's report is expected in August this year.

  Environmental Information Regulations
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation of the Environment Information Regulations 1992; how many applicants for information under the regulations over the past year have been refused the information requested; and if he will list the reasons for not providing the information in each available case. [14919]

  Mr. Gummer
  This information is not normally held centrally, but from a recent review of the operation of the regulations within central Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies, it was ascertained that during the calendar year 1996 there were at last 25 refusals to supply information under the 100
  regulations. Where cited the reasons for refusal were discretionary exemption (7), mandatory exemption (3), information not environmental (1), request formulated in too general a manner (1), and information supplied in part (1).

  Private Sector Housing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of private sector properties that fail to meet the current fitness standards and are occupied. [14690]

  Mr. Clappison
  The latest available information is from the 1991 English house condition survey, which found 1,089,000 occupied private sector dwellings to be unfit under the current fitness standard. Results from the 1996 EHCS should be available later this year.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use his Department and its agencies make of postcodes for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14806]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Postcodes are used in connection with the collection of some data relating to housing and other functions. They are also used in connection with the collection of data by other Government Departments and agencies which are used in some formulae for the distribution of grants. The data used have been reconsidered whenever appropriate.

  Offshore Drilling Platforms
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations govern the recovery of oil from oiled cuttings arising from offshore rig and platform activities by vacuum distillation. [14871]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Vacuum distillation is one option for recovering oil from oiled cuttings. I understand that no such oil recovery occurs offshore, largely due to the size of the necessary recovery equipment. Where oiled cuttings are brought onshore for recovery distillation, such distillation is a process prescribed for control under the integrated pollution control regime established by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Drax Power Station
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for a report from the Environment agency on the proposed use of petroleum coke in the Drax power station and the possible effects of emissions of varidium and nickel on the health of the local population in(a) Hull and the East Riding and (b) Scandinavia. [14882]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. it is for the Environment Agency to decide these matters. It would be inappropriate for a Minister to intervene in the way proposed, since any decision the agency might make could subsequently come before the Secretary of State on appeal.

  Beef Waste
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) incinerators and (b) power stations have been tested for emissions by the Environment Agency in connection with the burning of cattle carcases or rendered remains of BSE beasts. [15407]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency has tested one incinerator and one tyre burning plant for the burning of rendered materials, four incinerators for burning tannery waste, one incinerator for burning over-30-months scheme cattle and one for burning BSE carcases. In addition, testing of burning rendered materials has taken place at the small test rigs operated by National Power and PowerGen. No power stations burn this type of material.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions and where have(a) incinerators and (b) power stations failed to satisfy the Environment Agency with regard to emission levels in connection with the burning of BSE cattle. [15408]

  Mr. Clappison
  On no occasion.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the chairmanship and deputy chairmanship of the Housing Corporation. [15599]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am delighted to announce that Peter Cooke, who is currently deputy chairman of the Housing Corporation, has agreed to take over as chairman of the corporation for six months from 1 April. This will provide proper continuity for the corporation at time of change. Mr. Cooke has a fund of relevant experience in banking and public administration, including nine years on the board of the corporation.

  At the same time, George Cracknell, who is already a board member, will become deputy chairman. He is currently chairman of the corporation's finance and audit committee. In his capacity as deputy chairman, Mr. Cracknell will take over from Mr. Cooke as chairman of the registration and supervision committee.

  Sir Brian Pearse, the current chairman of the corporation, has indicated that he wishes to stand down when his term of office ends on 31 March 1997. He has led the Housing Corporation very effectively, gaining the respect of everyone in the housing world.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Tuesday 11 February. [14038]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February. [14039]

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

  Building Society Conversions (Disabled People's Rights)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have responsibility for assessing the National Disability Council's representations for action to stop building societies converting to banks without paying bonus shares to disabled people who are not the first named on their account; what response has been made to the council; what action has been taken by the Government; and if he will make a statement. [14666]

  The Prime Minister
  Officials from Her Majesty's Treasury, the Department responsible for overseeing building societies, and the disability unit of the Department of Social Security have been working together with the independent National Disability Council on this issue. A report of their progress was given to the National Disability Council's meeting on 27 January. My hon. Friend, the Minister for Disabled People hopes to respond to the council in the near future.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what role the Interception of Communications Tribunal and the commissioner have in the handling of(a) complaints of interceptions not authorised by warrant and (b) surreptitious surveillance of telephone calls by methods not prohibited by the definition of interception of the Court of Appeal in R v. Ahmed (1984); and what changes there have been to their role, with special reference to the area of unauthorised interception, since the statement by the Home Secretary on 7 February 1985, Official Report, column 1121. [15441]

  The Prime Minister
  The tribunal and commissioner have no statutory power to investigate allegations that interception has taken place without a warrant issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That would fall to be investigated by the police. The Act, which defines the roles of the tribunal and commissioner, is concerned only with the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system. It does not apply to private telecommunications systems. There has been no change to the roles of the tribunal and commissioner since the introduction of the Act.

  Ministerial Visits (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 448, who the 48 representatives of British industry were who accompanied him on his recent visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. [15000]

  The Prime Minister
  The following list details those commercial organisations who were represented on various stages of my visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh:
  Alfred McAlpine, SAGG, ANZ Gringlays, ABI, BAT, BOC, BAe British Airways, British Council, CBI, Commercial Union, Courtauld, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Eagle Star, Foster Wheeler, GEC, Grand Met, HSBC, Hyder Consulting Group, ICI Paints, Kvaerner, Mott McDonald, Nat West Markets, PowerGen, Premier, Robert Fleming, Rolls Royce, Royal Sun Alliance, The 600 Group, Scotch Whiskey Association, Standard Life, W S Atkins, Asia House, Caparo Group, GEC Alsthom, General Accident, GPT, John Laing

  103
  International Ltd, Prudential, RTZ/CRA, T&N, University of Warwick, Cable and Wireless, Midland Electricity, Hardy Oil, LASMO, Nat West Securities, Siemens Plessey, Shell UK, Balfour Beatty, Barclays Bank, Barclays BZW, Biwater, ICI-Polyester, National Grid.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what use his Department had its agencies makes of postcode areas for the collection of data; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14984]

  Mr. Streeter
  Neither the Department nor its agencies uses postcode areas directly for the collection of data. The Land Registry records postcodes as part of property descriptions and in the addresses of registered proprietors; postcodes can be used to search for individual title numbers. In some other data collections conducted by the Department and its agencies addresses with postcodes are sought—for example, on some court forms. Postcodes are also generally used in addresses when sending requests for data by post.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the quinquennial agency review of the Public Record Office. [15601]

  Mr. Streeter
  The second stage of the agency review-the prior options review—will begin on 12 February and will be completed by 30 September 1997.

  The Lord Chancellor has appointed a steering group to oversee the prior options review, comprising officials from his Department, the Public Record Office and the Office of Public Service, and representatives from his Advisory Council on Public Records and from the business community. The review will be led by the Public Record Office in liaison with his Department.

  It will follow Cabinet Office guidelines and will include an update of the evaluation of the Public Record Office's performance as an executive agency.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the Public Record Office and its work would be welcome and should be sent by 5 April 1997 to Elizabeth Honer, Secretary to the Public Record Office Agency Review Steering Group, Public Record Office, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14985]

  The Attorney-General: My Departments and agencies make no such use of postcode areas.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the organisations and (b) the individuals which the Sports Council has consulted during its current review of sports to be eligible for grant aid. [13525]

  Mr. Sproat
  There is no current review of sports eligible for grant aid. Work was undertaken in 1995–96 to co-ordinate the activities provided by the Sports Council's regions and units which assist in the development of excellence.

  The English Sports Council will be providing a high-quality range of services, including specialist advice, to all recognised governing bodies of sport. At the same time, the council is to give an enhanced set of additional services to a core group of 23 priority sports, dependant on specific needs.

  Governing bodies and organisations recognised by the Sports Council have been consulted on the review of services provided and all were invited to a briefing day meeting held on 8 May 1996. The other home country sports councils have also been consulted.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many sports have benefited from grant aid from the Sports Council; and if she will list them together with the amount of money they have received since 1994. [13519]

  Mr. Sproat
  In the financial year 1994–95, a total of 62 sports received grant aid from the Sports Council amounting to £10,005,034; in 1995–96 a total of 65 sports received grant aid from the Sports Council, amounting to £10,956,247; and in 1996–97 65 sports will receive grant aid planned at £9,899,957. Assistance has also been provided to sport and physical activities through the national sports centres and regional sports development schemes. Full details are provided in the table.

  Spoil

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Angling

  54,125

  81,750

  72,500

  Archery

  55,000

  109,000

  80,000

  Association football

  0

  11,250

  45,000

  Athletics

  332,500

  410,000

  326,500

  Badminton

  320,000

  365,000

  332,000

  Baseball

  32,500

  43,000

  43,000

  Basketball

  364,000

  355,000

  272,250

  Bobsleigh

  100,000

  100,000

  100,000

  Bowls

  42,250

  41,250

  22,000

  Boxing

  80,875

  153,125

  128,500

  Canoeing

  320,000

  380,000

  320,000

  Caving

  30,500

  29,125

  23,750

  Cricket

  238,334

  172,500

  220,450

  Croquet

  28,500

  29,500

  27,250

  Curling

  0

  28,000

  32,000

  Cycling

  311,750

  548,625

  513,250

  Disabled sport

  566,500

  803,250

  625,500

  Equestrian

  145,000

  178,000

  165,000

  Fencing

  175,000

  175,000

  175,000

  Fitness/aerobics

  0

  45,000

  75,000

  Flying

  10,000

  2,500

  0

  Gliding

  42,500

  37,500

  28,500

  105

  Sport

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Golf

  25,000

  25,000

  35,000

  Gymnastics

  416,500

  462,500

  429,500

  Handball

  11,000

  16,000

  16,000

  Hang and paragliding

  70,000

  70,000

  70,000

  Hockey

  553,250

  792,750

  581,000

  Ice hockey

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  Ice skating

  110,000

  122,000

  120,000

  Judo

  375,000

  490,000

  375,000

  Karate

  106,000

  70,000

  67,500

  Lacrosse

  130,000

  111,250

  145,834

  Land yachting

  17,500

  0

  0

  Life saving

  38,000

  26,250

  30,000

  Model flying

  15,000

  15,000

  15,000

  Modern pentathlon

  82,000

  89,000

  70,000

  Motor cycling

  0

  0

  10,125

  Mountaineering

  175,000

  195,000

  216,250

  Movement and dance

  185,875

  154,175

  133,125

  Netball

  117,125

  212,500

  128,750

  Orienteering

  125,000

  132,000

  124,750

  Parachuting

  93,500

  93,500

  93,500

  Petanque

  28,750

  17,500

  21,000

  Rambling

  45,000

  20,000

  0

  Real tennis

  0

  11,250

  17,500

  Roller hockey

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Roller skating

  18,000

  30,000

  28,000

  Rounders

  12,250

  13,250

  14,250

  Rowing

  442,500

  520,000

  447,500

  Rugby league

  167,500

  182,500

  167,500

  Rugby union

  90,000

  113,750

  125,000

  Sailing

  496,750

  518,250

  460,750

  Sand and land yachting

  0

  20,300

  19,000

  Shooting

  568,175

  251,785

  340,215

  Skiing

  427,000

  276,500

  225,000

  Softball

  0

  0

  15,000

  Squash

  221,250

  226,250

  240,000

  Surfing

  26,000

  21,000

  25,000

  Surf life saving

  40,625

  33,125

  38,250

  Swimming

  383,900

  345,500

  321.500

  Table tennis

  316,500

  297,250

  317,500

  Tennis and rackets

  11,250

  0

  0

  Tenpin bowling

  15,500

  20,000

  30,000

  Triathlon

  35,000

  40,000

  40,000

  Tug of war

  7,500

  7,500

  9,375

  Volleyball

  275,000

  355,000

  275,000

  Water skiing

  197,250

  195,000

  195,000

  Weight lifting

  177,500

  159,320

  145,000

  Wrestling

  56,750

  57,917

  45,833

  Total

  10,005,034

  10,956,247

  9,899,957

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many sports are currently eligible to receive grant aid from the Sports Council; and if she will list them. [13517]

  Mr. Sproat
  Ninety-five sports are currently eligible to be considered for the purposes of receiving grant aid. They are:

  Aikido

  American football

  Angling

  Archery

  Association football

  Athletics

  Badminton

  Ballooning

  Baseball

  Basketball

  Billiards and snooker

  Bobsleigh

  Bowls

  Boxing

  106

  Camogie

  Canoeing

  Caving

  Chinese martial arts

  Cricket

  Croquet

  Curling

  Cycling

  Disability sport

  Dragon boat race

  Equestrian

  Fencing

  Fives

  Flying

  Gaelic football

  Gliding

  Golf

  Gymnastics

  Handball

  Hang/para gliding

  Highland games

  Hockey

  Horse racing

  Hovering

  Hurling

  Ice hockey

  Ice skating

  Judi

  Ju jitsu

  Karate

  Kendo

  Korfball

  Lacrosse

  Lawn tennis

  Life saving

  Luge

  Modern pentathlon

  Motor cycling

  Motor sports

  Mountaineering

  Movement and dance

  Netball

  Orienteering

  Parachuting

  Petanque

  Polo

  Pool

  Quoits

  Racketball

  Rambling

  Real tennis and rackets

  Roller hockey

  Roller skating

  Rounders

  Rowing

  Rugby league

  Rugby union

  Sailing/yachting

  Sand and land yachting

  Shinty

  Shooting

  Skiing

  Softball

  Sombo wrestling

  Squash

  Sub aqua

  Surfing

  Surf life saving

  Swimming

  Table tennis

  Taekwondo

  Tang soo do

  Tenpin bowling

  Trampolining

  Triathlon

  Tug of war

  107

  Volleyball

  Water skiing

  Weightlifting

  Wrestling Yoga

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects the Sports Council's review of which sports are to be eligible for grant aid to be completed; and when she expects the revised guide lines to be published. [13524]

  Mr. Sproat
  The English Sports Council is not undertaking such a review.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the extra revenue which the BBC will receive as a result of its decision to implement the legal advice that a TV licence cannot cover more than one property. [15419]

  Mr. Sproat
  The BBC announced on 29 March 1996 that, in the light of legal advice, it could not continue the long-standing previous practice whereby the use of TV in second homes was deemed to be covered by a licence for the main residence, provided that there was no simultaneous use at both places. At that time, the Licensing Authority had some 38,000 second homes registered as not needing a second licence under that— incorrect—interpretation of the licensing legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly lay new, consolidated licence fee regulations, which will bring next year's licence fees into force from 1 April. These regulations will also amend the licensing requirements so that a licence for a main residence covers use of TV by members of the household in any vehicle, vessel or touring caravan and, provided there is no simultaneous use, by any member of the household in any static caravan or mobile home. Use of TV in permanent structure second homes will continue to require a separate licence.

  If TV continues to be used at all the 38,000 second homes previously registered with the Licensing Authority as not requiring a separate licence, this should raise over £3 million extra licence fee revenue for the BBC each year. If colour licences were needed, and paid for, in all the fixed second homes in the United Kingdom—an estimated total of some 200,000—the maximum extra revenue accruing would be around £18 million, though some of these homes may already by licensed.

  Sports Council Lottery Fund
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many sports are currently eligible to assistance from the Sports Council lottery fund; and if she will list them. [13523]

  Mr. Sproat
  One hundred and eleven sports are currently eligible to assistance from the English Sports Council lottery sports fund. They are:

  Aikido

  American football

  Angling

  Archery

  Arm wrestling

  Association football

  Athletics

  108

  Australian rules football

  Badminton

  Ballooning

  Baseball

  Basketball

  Baton twirling

  Bicycle polo

  Billiards and snooker

  Bobsleigh

  Boccia

  Bowls

  Boxing

  Camogie

  Canoeing

  Caving

  Chinese martial arts

  Cricket

  Croquet

  Crossbow

  Curling

  Cycling

  Disability sport

  Dragon boat racing

  Equestrian

  Fencing

  Fives

  Hying

  Gaelic football

  Gliding

  Golf

  Gymnastics

  Handball

  Hang-gliding and paragliding

  Highland games

  Hockey

  Horse racing

  Hovering

  Hurling

  Ice hockey

  Ice skating

  Jet skiing

  Ju jitsu

  Judo

  Kabaddi

  Karate

  Kendo

  Korfball

  Lacrosse

  Lawn tennis

  Life saving

  Luge

  Modern pentathlon

  Motor cycling

  Motor sports

  Mountaineering

  Movement, dance, exercise and fitness

  Netball

  Orienteering

  Parachuting

  Petanque

  Polo

  Pony trekking

  Pool

  Quoits

  Racketball

  Rackets

  Raquetball

  Rambling

  Real tennis

  Roller hockey

  Roller skating

  Rounders

  Rowing

  Rugby league

  Rugby union

  Sailing/yachting

  109

  Sand/land yachting

  Shinty

  Shooting

  Skateboarding

  Skiing

  Skipping

  Snowboarding

  Softball

  Sombo wrestling

  Squash

  Street/skater hockey

  Sub-aqua

  Surf-life saving

  Surfing

  Swimming

  Table tennis

  Taekwondo

  Tank soo do

  Tenpin bowling

  Trampolining

  Triathlon

  Tug of war

  Unihoc

  Volleyball

  Water skiing

  Weightlifting

  Wrestling

  Yoga

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will list(a) the bodies and (b) the individuals which the Sports Council lottery fund has consulted during the current review of which sports are eligible for lottery awards; [13521]

  (2) when she expects the Sports Council lottery fund's review of what sports are eligible for lottery awards to be completed; and when she expects the revised guidelines to be published. [13520]

  Mr. Sproat
  The English Sports Council lottery unit is not currently conducting a review of those sports eligible for lottery funding.

  Non-print Publications (Legal Deposit)
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how she plans to take forward the proposals for extension of legal deposit to electronic and other non-profit publications from the British Library, the other legal deposit libraries and the British Film Institute in January 1996; and if she will make a statement.[15563]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have today published a consultation paper which seeks views on the present arrangements for legal deposit of printed publications with the British Library and the other legal deposit libraries; invites comments on the availability and use of legal deposit material in Northern Ireland; and seeks views on a range of voluntary and statutory options for deposit of electronic publications, sound recordings, films and video recordings, and microform publications. The paper also seeks views on establishing a mechanism for further extension of legal deposit without the need for fresh primary legislation.

  The main purpose of legal deposit is to establish as comprehensive an archive as possible of our national published output for use by future generations. As publication technology, and non-print forms of publication, develop the Government regard it as essential that some way is found to ensure that published material in forms other than print is deposited in our national
  110
  archives. The consultation paper addresses the scope for building on existing voluntary arrangements and extending statutory deposit. Legal deposit imposes a burden on publishers, and it is essential that we consult fully on the issues with the publishing and film industries, as well as with libraries, their users and others with an interest. The consultation paper addresses the circumstances in which published material can be accessed and preserved without infringing publishers' intellectual property rights or damaging their business interests. It also includes a draft assessment of the additional costs which publishers, film producers and film distributors might incur in complying with an extended system of legal deposit.

  I have today placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Libraries of the House, and the Government are arranging for copies to be sent to a wide range of bodies and individuals with an interest in legal deposit. Further copies are available, on request, from my Department. The consultation paper seeks responses by 11 April. Anybody wishing to comment on the issues raised in the consultation paper, including the additional burden which extended legal deposit would place on business, should write by that date to my Department. In the light of the responses which we receive, the Government will consider whether to introduce legislation on legal deposit.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's estimate of the percentage breakdown of transport use by visitors to the Greenwich millennium exhibition. [10867]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many people are employed by her Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14464]

  Mr. Sproat
  Advice on equal opportunities is an integral part of the personnel function and is not separately costed.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what use her Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14805]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage uses postcodes to collate information on national lottery awards and last reviewed their usage in November 1996.

  Sporting Events (Public Highways)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the Sports Council's policy towards sporting events held on public highways. [13925]
  111
  Mr. Sproat
  I understand the English Sports Council encourages sports bodies to stage sporting events at the most appropriate venue. Where events are held on the public highway, the council wishes to see that the safety of competitors is ensured by careful planning and organisation.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what meetings she has held with the Home Secretary regarding the policy of the Association of Chief Police Officers towards sports events held on public highways. [13924]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. I understand the policy of the Association of Chief Police Officers has been, for a number of years, to encourage organisations to hold events away from the highway in local parks or sports stadiums. This stems from their concerns about the safety of participants, and the danger to other road users. There are certain events which are treated as exceptions to the policy, the most notable example being the London marathon, where the police and the highway authorities are content that the event cannot be held off the road.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobmatch
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her latest estimate of(a) the total number of people who have received jobmatch payments, (b) the total number applying, (c) the number refused, by reason of refusal, (d) the total cost of the scheme and (e) the annual cost of extending the pilot scheme to all age groups nationally. [15089]

  Mr. Forth
  The information available is as follows:(a) over 6,000 people have joined the jobmatch programme since April 1995, (b) we do not keep records of the numbers applying for jobmatch, or (c) the number of people refused, but the only circumstances in which this would happen would be where either the person was not eligible or the job was not a qualifying one, (d) the estimated cost of the jobmatch pilots which end in March 1997 is £8 million and, (e) the cost of extending jobmatch to all age groups nationally would be about £50 million per year.

  Special Needs Teaching Training
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the continued training of teachers with special reference to the teaching of children with special needs; and if she will make a statement. [15094]

  Mr. Forth
  In March 1996, the Secretary of State was presented with the report, "Professional Development to meet Special Educational Needs" by the special educational needs training consortium. In response, she asked the Teacher Training Agency to take forward a range of measures to improve the training of teachers of all children with special educational needs.

  We are very pleased with the TTA's progress and with the priority that it is giving to training in special educational needs within its overall framework for teacher training. I understand that the TTA will be reporting to the Secretary of State on its work later this year.

  Severe Hardship Payments Scheme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of(a) introducing regulations relating to the severe hardship payments scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds, (b) administering the scheme through (i) Benefits Agency local offices and (ii) jobcentres and (c) introducing a right of appeal in respect of the scheme. [15079]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobseeker's allowance—JSA—replaced income support for jobseekers on October 7 1996. Under JSA, 16 and 17-year-olds attend the careers service and jobcentre. They no longer have to attend the Benefits Agency office.

  We are carrying out a full evaluation of JSA. There will be a range of surveys, including qualitative research on the effect of JSA on 16 to 17-year-olds, covering both young people who would otherwise be in severe hardship and those in prescribed circumstances. Also included will be surveys of Employment Service and Benefits Agency staff involved in the delivery of JSA.

  JSA continues the policy whereby unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds who would otherwise be in severe hardship may be awarded benefit at the Secretary of State's discretion. There are no plans to change this.

  Income Support (Young People)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of(a) the number gaining and (b) the cost of extending the period during which income support is payable to a young person who has left local authority accommodation provided under part III of the Children Act 1989 to (i) 13 weeks, (ii) 26 weeks and (iii) the relevant child benefit extension period. [15077]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobseeker's allowance—JSA—replaced income support for jobseekers on 7 October 1996. We do not have information on the number of young people—16 and 17-year-olds—who claim JSA immediately after leaving local authority care. These people may be entitled to JSA for up to eight weeks. When this period finishes, a young person may apply for JSA on the ground that he would otherwise be in severe hardship. If the claim is successful, the Secretary of State will direct that JSA should be paid for a specific period—usually eight weeks. This direction may be renewed at the Secretary of State's discretion. At all times the young person will have to meet the entitlement conditions for JSA.

  Loudwater Combined School
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to make a decision on the proposals by Loudwater combined school to establish a new nursery. [14981]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Officials have today informed the chairman of governors of Loudwater combined school that the Secretary of State has approved the governors' proposal to establish a nursery.

  Seat Belts (School Transport)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost for each local education authority area of installing seat belts in vehicles used for transporting children; and if she will make a statement. [15337]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The costs to authorities of implementing the new requirements were taken into account by the Government when determining the total allowed for education in the local government finance settlement.

  It is for each local authority to determine its own level of education expenditure, both in aggregate and on the different areas of its education service, including transport, on the basis of its assessment of local needs and priorities and within its capping limits.

  Teachers (Average Age)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average age

  PRC and Crombie payments

  England and Wales

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  101

  139

  161

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  134

  0

  44

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  449

  230

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  409

  0

  847

  Wands worth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  359

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  605

  290

  751

  601

  635

  Barnet

  1,344

  1,425

  1,475

  1479

  1,731

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  981

  586

  551

  557

  509

  Croydon

  248

  630

  474

  443

  405

  Ealing

  861

  479

  636

  1,077

  619

  Enfield

  0

  0

  705

  0

  0

  Haringey

  474

  541

  583

  612

  551

  Harrow

  353

  534

  397

  466

  635

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  11

  208

  253

  349

  405

  Kingston upon Thames

  304

  358

  454

  428

  477

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  769

  269

  364

  440

  489

  Redbridge

  288

  387

  405

  416

  585

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suttton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  212

  Waltham Forest

  324

  5

  13

  374

  0

  Birmingham

  3,422

  3,947

  5,443

  4,911

  4,557

  Coventry

  12

  2,982

  2,137

  450

  2,201

  Dudley

  884

  851

  791

  995

  1,137

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  553

  575

  507

  Walsall

  0

  643

  1,567

  676

  1,945

  Wolverhampton

  94

  195

  326

  73

  165

  Knowsley

  0

  957

  945

  1,132

  1,157

  Liverpool

  2,727

  3,780

  3,058

  2,684

  2,826

  114
  of teachers employed (a) in London and (b) in the south-west region in the most recent year for which figures are available. [15423]

  Mr. Forth
  The average age of teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector, as at 31 March 1995, was 40 years in Greater London and 42 years in the south-west region.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost for each local education authority of early retirement and redundancy packages for teachers for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [15355]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Total expenditure on premature retirement compensation and Crombie payments as recorded by each local education authority in England and Wales for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95 is shown in the following table. The expenditure figures include payments made to further and higher education lecturers and to teachers at sixth-form colleges and grant-maintained schools who were granted premature retirement by the LEA. Separate details of redundancy payments are not collected centrally.
  115 116

  PRC and Crombie payments

  England and Wales

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  St. Helens

  953

  1,126

  2,061

  1,383

  1,391

  Sefton

  1,496

  1,536

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  231

  182

  97

  28

  29

  Bolton

  898

  1,022

  1,122

  1,098

  1,210

  Bury

  848

  1,031

  1,064

  1,016

  1,029

  Manchester

  2,144

  2,815

  4,400

  4,559

  3,808

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  469

  493

  806

  768

  836

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  512

  447

  547

  677

  706

  Tameside

  0

  0

  933

  853

  948

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  569

  615

  Wigan

  1,377

  1,681

  1,999

  2,269

  2,423

  Barnsley

  200

  532

  35

  37

  43

  Doncaster

  0

  379

  0

  1,583

  1,738

  Rotherham

  203

  271

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  1,354

  1,153

  2,860

  2,863

  2,572

  Calderdale

  453

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  275

  1,465

  838

  397

  410

  Leeds

  0

  0

  3

  3,128

  0

  Wakefield

  1,228

  1,389

  1,924

  1,823

  1,604

  Gateshead

  0

  44

  73

  848

  846

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  305

  1,261

  1,608

  2,776

  1,930

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  273

  287

  Sunderland

  364

  470

  397

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  0

  0

  747

  1,347

  1,321

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  704

  812

  779

  890

  1,130

  Buckinghamshire

  249

  265

  1,105

  1,454

  1,520

  Cambridgeshire

  899

  1,447

  1,705

  1,736

  1,785

  Cheshire

  191

  124

  1,874

  940

  814

  Cleveland

  1,328

  1,720

  1,761

  1,901

  1,868

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,793

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  1,320

  1,556

  696

  2,425

  3,024

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  782

  1,183

  1,443

  1,402

  1,407

  Durham

  -14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  547

  877

  1,039

  2,044

  1,968

  Essex

  1,915

  1,945

  2,066

  2,662

  2,459

  Gloucestershire

  1,567

  2,150

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  1,862

  2,215

  2,750

  2,720

  3,143

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  264

  0

  347

  -54

  Hertfordshire

  453

  1,734

  1,769

  1,322

  1,260

  Humberside

  726

  759

  854

  0

  3,615

  Isle of Wight

  94

  108

  124

  134

  174

  Kent

  314

  151

  223

  219

  227

  Lancashire

  4,374

  4,804

  5,193

  4,781

  3,539

  Leicestershire

  1,267

  2,075

  2,275

  1,701

  2,380

  Lincolnshire

  968

  148

  126

  110

  78

  Norfolk

  1,200

  196

  0

  0

  4

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  111

  128

  494

  313

  334

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,066

  2,295

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  1,389

  1,585

  1,586

  1,694

  1,872

  Shropshire

  16

  19

  18

  13

  5

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  2,715

  3,214

  3,987

  3,814

  3,797

  Suffolk

  14

  156

  0

  1,112

  1,254

  Surrey

  0

  0

  2,791

  4,040

  3,259

  Warwickshire

  922

  1,269

  1,428

  1,395

  1,490

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  728

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  872

  0

  1,342

  Clwyd

  1,938

  2,134

  2,674

  2,364

  2,657

  Dyfed

  812

  784

  1,006

  863

  937

  Gwent

  121

  2,866

  2,606

  2,704

  3,174

  Gwynedd

  206

  154

  151

  140

  137

  117

  PRC and Crombie payments

  England and Wales

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  919

  2,005

  343

  387

  Powys

  300

  306

  644

  541

  429

  South Glamorgan

  0

  949

  972

  965

  999

  West Glamorgan

  1,470

  1,349

  798

  1,819

  1,922

  Total (England and Wales)

  58,877

  79,025

  91,847

  96,632

  103,995

TREASURY

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 35, if he will list the principal differences between the Cardiff bay barrage scheme as presented for approval in November 1987 and as approved in June 1988. [13492]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: The answer can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 35, concerning the Cardiff bay barrage, if he will list the consultant's reports supplied to his Department by the Welsh Office between November 1987 and June 1988 in support of the main economic appraisal document. [13493]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: In November 1987, the Welsh Office provided the Treasury with a copy of an economic appraisal of the project prepared by Peat Marwick McLintock. Peat Marwick McLintock subsequently revised the appraisal and this was provided to the Treasury in June 1988.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 35, if he will place in the Library (a) the Treasury's letter of approval for the Cardiff Bay barrage project and (b) the appraisal commentary by his departmental economic appraisal team. [13491]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: Approval was provided in a ministerial exchange of letters. It is not the Government's practice to place such correspondence, or advice provided to Ministers by officials, in the Library.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 398, on gross running costs, if he will make a statement on how the additional expenditure in each of those Departments incurring an increase is to be used. [14582]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The effectiveness of Government policy in bearing down on the costs of departmental administration has allowed increases in certain Departments' running costs to reflect key Government priorities.

  Additional running costs provision for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department for Social Security reflects additional anti-fraud and anti-evasion measures. Further details of this "spend to save" package can be found on page 106 of the "Financial
  118
  Statement and Budget Report 1997–98". Extra provision for the Home Office reflects the projected growth in the prison population. Additional running costs provision for the agriculture departments is to fund the continuing package of measures to counter BSE.

  The detailed allocation of running costs provision within Departments is a matter for individual spending Ministers.

  Share Option Schemes
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the cost to the Exchequer in 1995–96, (b) the estimated likely costs in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98 of approved discretionary share option schemes and (c) the estimated costs of company share option plans in 1998–99. [15101]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Available provisional estimates are as follows:

  Estimated cost of tax relief1

  £ million

  Approved discretionary share option schemes2

  1995–96

  70

  1996–97

  80

  Information on share schemes comes from annual returns which must be submitted by companies operating schemes. The latest year for which forms have been received and processed is 1994–95. The estimated cost of tax relief for executive share option schemes for 1994–95 is £60 million. This cost has been projected forward using, changes in the general level of share prices, and assumes a similar level of options exercised.

  1 Estimated costs are the effects on tax liabilities for each year, and not the receipts in each year. Figures are tentative and subject to a wide margin of error.

  2 The costs take account that relief from income tax is partially offset by liability to capital gains tax arising from disposals of shares acquired under the scheme.

  Figures for further years are not available, however it is estimated that the first full-year cost of tax relief for company share option plans may eventually be around £90 million.

  London Transport Funding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received from(a) chief officers and the Board of London Transport and (b) the City of London about the Government's annual settlement for London Transport; and what was contained in the representations about the effect of the settlement upon London Transport's investment programme and existing infrastructure. [13762]
  119
  Mr. Waldegrave
  A number of representations have been received about the annual settlement for London Transport. In addition to investment in the Jubilee line extension, the settlement provides for average investment of £525 million per year, 50 per cent. higher in real terms than the average of the 1980s.

  European Community Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the main items of income and expenditure

  Table 1: European Community Budget: Expenditure

  Figures are in millions of ecu at constant 1996 prices

  EAGGF guarantee

  Per cent, of total general budget

  EAGGF guidance

  Per cent, of total general budget

  ERDF

  Per cent, of total general budget

  ESF

  Per cent of total general budget

  Cohesion fund

  Per cent, of total general budget

  Research

  Per cent, of total general budget

  Admin.

  Per cent, of total general budget

  Other

  Per cent, of total general budget

  Total

  UK, Ireland and Denmark accede

  1973

  18,962

  80.2

  57

  0.2

  —

  —

  1,303

  5.5

  —

  —

  368

  1.6

  1,287

  5.4

  1,659

  7.0

  23,635

  1974

  16,048

  71.7

  175

  0.8

  —

  —

  1,132

  5.1

  —

  —

  512

  2.3

  1,420

  6.3

  3,100

  13.8

  22,387

  1975

  17,547

  74.4

  311

  1.3

  608

  2.6

  603

  2.6

  —

  —

  470

  2.0

  1,476

  6.3

  2,571

  10.9

  23,585

  1976

  20,442

  74.5

  407

  1.5

  1,088

  4.0

  768

  2.8

  —

  —

  461

  1.7

  1,562

  5.7

  2,700

  9.8

  27,428

  1977

  21,387

  75.4

  367

  1.3

  1,299

  4.6

  560

  2.0

  —

  —

  587

  2.1

  1,629

  5.7

  2,535

  8.9

  28,364

  1978

  25,548

  72.1

  958

  2.7

  1,545

  4.4

  1,584

  4.5

  —

  —

  786

  2.2

  2,021

  5.7

  3,003

  8.5

  35,446

  1979

  27,670

  73.0

  763

  2.0

  1,862

  4.9

  1,412

  3.7

  —

  —

  713

  1.9

  2,066

  5.5

  3,396

  9.0

  37,883

  1980

  26,762

  71.2

  746

  2.0

  1,880

  5.0

  1,660

  4.4

  —

  —

  863

  2.3

  1,967

  5.2

  3,704

  9.9

  37,582

  Greece accedes

  1981

  23,644

  64.6

  1,154

  3.2

  5,143

  14.1

  1,326

  3.6

  —

  —

  666

  1.8

  2,013

  5.5

  3,937

  10.8

  37,882

  1982

  23,732

  59.9

  1,260

  3.2

  5,624

  14.2

  1,963

  5.0

  —

  —

  847

  2.1

  2,029

  5.1

  4,170

  10.5

  39,624

  1983

  28,164

  64.4

  1,026

  2.3

  4,115

  9.4

  2,140

  4.9

  —

  —

  2,401

  5.5

  1,977

  4.5

  3,899

  8.9

  43,721

  1984

  30,593

  67.7

  994

  2.2

  2,357

  5.2

  2,023

  4.5

  —

  —

  2,770

  6.1

  2,024

  4.5

  4,436

  9.8

  45,198

  1985

  31,090

  70.8

  1,080

  2.5

  2,537

  5.8

  2,218

  5.1

  —

  —

  1,068

  2.4

  2,056

  4.7

  3,867

  8.8

  43,918

  Spain and Portugal accede

  1986

  33,009

  63.8

  1,151

  2.2

  3,666

  7.1

  3,637

  7.0

  —

  —

  1,157

  2.2

  2,289

  4.4

  6,840

  13.2

  51,749

  1987

  32,902

  65.4

  1,132

  2.3

  3,670

  7.3

  3,598

  7.2

  —

  —

  1,383

  2.7

  2,433

  4.8

  5,185

  10.3

  50,303

  1988

  37,949

  67.4

  1,567

  2.8

  4,092

  7.3

  3,156

  5.6

  —

  —

  1,551

  2.8

  2,631

  4.7

  5,386

  9.6

  56,331

  1989

  33,799

  63.4

  1,764

  3.3

  5,127

  9.6

  3,500

  6.6

  —

  —

  1,985

  3.7

  2,708

  5.1

  4,420

  8.3

  53,302

  1990

  33,619

  61.5

  2,265

  4.1

  5,651

  10.3

  3,985

  7.3

  —

  —

  2,221

  4.1

  2,920

  5.3

  4,012

  7.3

  54,673

  1991

  36,413

  57.7

  2,453

  3.9

  7,418

  11.8

  4,740

  7.5

  —

  —

  2,007

  3.2

  3,124

  5.0

  6,944

  11.0

  63,099

  1992

  35,143

  53.9

  3,205

  4.9

  9,627

  14.8

  4,844

  7.4

  —

  —

  2,142

  3.3

  3,097

  4.7

  7,160

  11.0

  65,217

  1993

  37,637

  54.0

  3,163

  4.5

  10,360

  14.9

  5,842

  8.4

  863

  1.2

  2,432

  3.5

  3,243

  4.7

  6,142

  8.8

  69,682

  1994

  34,775

  55.9

  2,617

  4.2

  6,691

  10.7

  4,560

  7.3

  900

  1.4

  2,613

  4.2

  3,406

  5.5

  6,681

  10.7

  62,243

  Austria, Sweden and Finland accede

  1995

  35,347

  52.0

  2,596

  3.8

  8,591

  12.6

  4,665

  6.9

  1,743

  2.6

  2,611

  3.8

  3,653

  5.4

  8,794

  12.9

  68,001

  Table 2: European Community Budget: Revenue

  Figures are in millions of ecu at constant 1996 prices

  Agricultural levies

  Per cent, of total revenue

  Customs duties

  Per cent, of total revenue

  VAT source

  Per cent, of total revenue

  GNP/4th resource

  Per cent, of total revenue

  Misc.

  Per cent, of total revenue

  Total

  UK, Ireland and Denmark accede

  1973

  2,677

  10.4

  10,420

  40.4

  12,684

  49.2

  25,781

  1974

  1,531

  6.4

  12,698

  53.2

  9,628

  40.4

  23,858

  1975

  2,393

  9.2

  12,776

  49.3

  10,720

  41.4

  25,889

  1976

  4,220

  14.2

  14,741

  49.7

  10,722

  36.1

  29,683

  1977

  5,774

  20.5

  12,751

  45.3

  9,641

  34.2

  28,166

  1978

  6,708

  18.3

  12,925

  35.3

  17,023

  46.4

  36,656

  1979

  5,710

  14.4

  13,823

  34.8

  12,621

  31.8

  7,515

  18.9

  39,669

  1980

  4,745

  12.2

  13,997

  35.9

  17,203

  44.2

  3000

  7.7

  38,945

  Greece accedes

  1981

  3,734

  9.2

  13,661

  33.8

  19,635

  48.6

  3,399

  8.4

  40,429

  1982

  4,312

  10.1

  13,193

  30.9

  23,230

  54.3

  2,010

  4.7

  42,746

  1983

  4,342

  9.5

  12,907

  28.1

  24,426

  53.2

  4,228

  9.2

  45,904

  1984

  4,923

  11.3

  12,723

  29.2

  24,310

  55.8

  1,574

  3.6

  43,530

  1985

  3,434

  7.8

  13,096

  29.6

  23,985

  54.2

  3,746

  8.5

  44,261

  Spain and Portugal accede

  1986

  3,413

  6.8

  12,197

  24.3

  33,166

  66.0

  1,468

  2.9

  50,245

  1987

  4,441

  8.7

  12,812

  25.0

  33,638

  65.6

  409

  0.8

  51,300

  120
  of the general budget of the European Economic Community for each year since 1973 at 1996 prices, together with the percentages of each main category of income or expenditure, indicating also accessions to the Community in relevant years. [14330]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is set out in the tables.
  121 122

  Table 2: European Community Budget: Revenue

  Figures are in millions of ecu at constant 1996 prices

  Agricultural levies

  Per cent, of total revenue

  Customs duties

  Per cent, of total revenue

  VAT source

  Per cent, of total revenue

  GNP/4th resource

  Per cent, of total revenue

  Misc.

  Per cent, of total revenue

  Total

  1988

  3,578

  6.2

  12,785

  22.3

  32,857

  57.2

  6,105

  10.6

  2,134

  3.7

  57,459

  1989

  3,136

  5.2

  13,487

  22.5

  34,387

  57.3

  5,910

  9.8

  3,108

  5.2

  60,028

  1990

  2,327

  4.0

  12,762

  22.1

  34,048

  59.1

  118

  0.2

  8,404

  14.6

  57,659

  1991

  2,924

  4.4

  13,497

  20.4

  35,600

  53.8

  8,756

  13.2

  5,378

  8.1

  66,156

  1992

  2,237

  3.3

  12,709

  18.9

  39,008

  58.0

  9,366

  13.9

  3,883

  5.8

  67,204

  1993

  2,095

  2.9

  11,999

  16.8

  37.432

  52.5

  17,927

  25.2

  1,823

  2.6

  71,276

  1994

  2,192

  3.1

  11,813

  16.9

  35,143

  50.4

  18,686

  26.8

  1,916

  2.7

  69,750

  Austria, Sweden and Finland accede

  1995

  1,995

  2.6

  12,834

  16.7

  40,202

  52.2

  14,560

  18.9

  7,438

  9.7

  77,029

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for outturn. As yet outturn figures are not available for 1996.

  2. Figures converted to constant 1996 prices using EU15 deflator throughout.

  3. Items are denominated in ecus as the unit of account for the EC Budget.

  4. Other spending includes spending on external policies, internal policies other than research and Financial Instruments for Fisheries Guidance.

  Sources:

  1. The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures, 1996 Edition; European Commission.

  2. European Economy, Number 62, 1996; European Commission.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has provided to Kenya in promoting family planning; what has been the birth rate for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15379]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The crude birth rate in 1989 was 47 per thousand population. By 1994 it is estimated that the rate had declined to 42 per thousand population. Details of British development assistance for family planning are given in the table.

  Year

  Project

  Description

  Total cost £ million

  1988–94

  Population III

  Clinic development, training programmes, NGO support

  4.6

  1993–94

  Emergency supply of contraceptives

  50 million condoms and 200,000 vaginal foaming tablets

  1.02

  1994

  Family planning services

  Injectable contraceptives, disposable gloves, family planning clinical equipment sets, intra-uterine copper device insertion kits

  2.0

  1995–96

  Family planning bridging project

  1 million doses injectable contraception (DepoProvera) and up to 30 million condoms

  1.45

  1996–97

  Contraceptive supply

  1.1 million doses injectable contraception (DepoProvera) and up to 40 million condoms

  1.94

  1996–97

  Family planning interim support project

  To supply 2.45 million doses DepoProvera and 5 million condoms plus support to eight NGOs.

  3.5

  We have recently committed an additional £11 million for strengthening reproductive health services in Kenya, for expenditure over the next five years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Fairs and Seminar Support
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the outstanding bids for trade fair and overseas seminar support in 1997–98. [15598]
  124
  Mr. Nelson
  I am pleased to announce today that my Department will offer grants for the remaining 40 trade fairs not included in my statement on 17 January. The full programme for 1997–98 will thus comprise support for groups exhibiting at 300 trade fairs and 31 seminars abroad. I am putting a list of the further events into the Library of the House and my Department will be writing individually to all those who made bids to tell them the outcome.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14800]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Postcodes are used to define the area covered by a survey of electricity and gas prices paid by industrial users in four United Kingdom cities in order to meet the requirements of an EU directive 9013771EEC. They are also used to fix the location of businesses within local authority areas and travel-to-work areas which determine eligibility for grants and awards. The Department does not otherwise use postcode areas in the collection of data and in distributing grants and awards.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the working time directive applies to(a) all public sector employees and (b) employees of the privatised utilities. [15171]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The directive applies to all sectors of activity, both public and private, with certain exceptions. These exceptions cover: air; rail; road; sea; inland waterway and lake transport; sea fishing; other work at sea; the activities of doctors in training; and cases where characteristics peculiar to certain specific activities of the armed forces, police or civil protection services inevitably conflict with the directive.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the role of the ECGD in respect of the funding of a power station in Palau in 1983. [15207]

  Mr. Nelson
  Records show that in 1983 the ECGD guaranteed an export credit loan to assist in the financing of a contract for the supply of a 15MW diesel generator power station to Palau. Following a default in 1985, the ECGD instructed the lending bank to exercise its security rights. This was successfully achieved and, as a result, the ECGD's guarantee terminated and the relevant files were closed.

  Trade Mission (Azerbaijan)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the trade mission led by Lord Fraser to Azerbaijan. [13712]
  125
  Mr. Nelson
  Lord Fraser's mission comprised a group of British companies focused on the inspection, repair and maintenance sector for the oil and gas industry. Its objective was to assess the business opportunities available in the refurbishment of the badly run-down Azeri oil and gas production facilities. A number of significant opportunities were identified and discussed with senior authorities and several of the participating companies are to return over the coming weeks for detailed follow-up. During the course of the visit a substantial contract award was made to one of the companies on the mission.

  The mission was regarded as very successful by those participating.

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many EU funded networks in nanotechnology are based(a) inside and (b) outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [14969]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: The European Commission's research and development information service database—CORDIS—indicates that there are at least 33 current (1997) nanotechnology projects, established with EU funding under the EC research and development framework programme. Of these 33 project consortia, three are networks. Organisations from the United Kingdom lead four of the projects and participate in 16. The data provided cover the areas of micro-submicro electronics and systems, nano-structures, nano-processing and high precision engineering.

  In addition, a UK lead consortium, with partners in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark is currently preparing a proposal for a nano-engineering network in response to already existing—and equivalent—networks in Japan and the US.

  Business Appointment Rules
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made by his Department's officials under the business appointment rules in each year since 1989; and how many of these applications have been granted. [9779]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: My Department, including those parts of the DTI that were transferred to the Department as a result of machinery of government changes, received the following applications:

  1989: 140

  1990: 160

  1991: 46

  1992: 73

  1993: 51

  1994: 82

  1995: 73

  1996: 142.

  126
  No applications were refused, although several were approved with various conditions and waiting periods attached.

  Animals (Cosmetics Testing)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposed EU ban on the use of animals in cosmetic testing. [14779]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Commission has announced that it will be bringing forward proposals for a draft Council directive to ban the testing of finished cosmetic products on animals from 1 January 1998, but with certain dispensations for exceptional cases. United Kingdom toxicological advisers see no justification for dispensations and we intend therefore to press, in the negotiations, for a total ban on finished product testing.

  Electricity and Gas Prices
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the prices for electricity and gas have fallen for industrial users since the privatisation of these industries; and how average prices compare with those in other EU countries. [14595]

  Mr. Page
  Between privatisation in quarter four 1986 and quarter three 1996, average UK industrial gas prices have fallen by 59 per cent. in real terms, whilst between privatisation in quarter two 1990 and quarter three 1996, average UK industrial electricity prices have fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms.

  In 1995, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available, UK industrial gas prices were the lowest in the European Union, an improvement from sixth lowest in 1990. Electricity prices were in the mid range of prices—seventh lowest—an improvement on 10th lowest in 1990.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total funding of the local competitiveness budget and sector challenge fund for the next financial year; and if he will list the allocation of these funds by region. [15002]

  Mr. Page
  The total funding for the local competitiveness budget in 1997–98 is £169 million. Allocations have been made to regions for the business link core services, regional supply network and investors in people parts of the budget. The level of expenditure in each region from the local challenge part of this budget will depend upon the quality of individual bids in each region. In addition, some of the budget is used at national level to support local activity, for example on business link publicity and on management best practice.

  Region

  1997–98 DTI core services provision £

  1997–98 regional supply network provision £

  1997–98 DJEE investors in people provision £

  South East

  11,433,953

  373,000

  7,765,000

  London

  10,852,241

  253,000

  11,374,000

  Eastern

  7,363,309

  270,000

  5,969,000

  South West1

  7,963,441

  299,676

  5,582,000

  West Midlands

  8,402,068

  375,000

  6,993,000

  East Midlands

  5,788,621

  327,000

  5,192,000

  127

  Region

  1997–98 DTI core services provision £

  1997–98 regional supply network provision £

  1997–98 DfEE investors in people provision £

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,400,000

  297,600

  6,610,000

  North West

  8,750,000

  383,000

  2,015,000

  Merseyside2

  1,909,367

  —

  7,500,000

  North East

  3,700,000

  157,594

  3,199,000

  National total

  72,563,000

  2,735,870

  62,199,000

  1 South West regional supply network includes £12,626 for Devon and Cornwall regional supply office.

  2 Merseyside regional supply network provision is included in the figure for the north west.

  Funding for the first round of sector challenge will amount to at least £30 million over three years. The actual expenditure in each year will be affected by the spend profile of the portfolio of successful bids. There is no prior allocation of the fund to different regions. The challenge is a UK-wide competition and the geographical location of organisations mounting successful bids may not relate directly to the regions in which benefits from those bids will accrue.

  Ford UK
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he first met Ford UK to discuss the implications of the closure announcement at Halewood; and when he last met representatives of the company prior to the announcement. [15105]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: I met Jac Nasser, president of Ford Europe, to discuss future investment at Halewood on 16 January. Prior to that I met Sir Alex Trotman, chairman, president and chief executive of Ford Motor Company, on 2 March 1996.

  My officials have frequent contact and meetings with the company.

  Iveco Ford
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Iveco Ford company at Langley; and if he will make a statement. [15106]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Officials from my Department's automotive directorate have regular discussions with Iveco Ford's UK management, as well as with representatives of the company's parent organisation. The subjects under discussion are treated as confidential.

  Prior Options Reviews
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost of the prior options reviews; and if he will make a statement. [15082]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The estimated total cost of conducting the prior options reviews, excluding the costs for the preparation of the privatisation of ADAS, the establishment of the health and safety laboratory as an internal agency of the Health and Safety Executive, and the conversion of three establishments into new executive agencies, is likely to be in the region of £1.5 million. This cost is small compared with the sum devoted to the establishments—some £690 million a year. The 128
  Government believe that to achieve further efficiency gains, which can only benefit the science base, this is a worthwhile investment.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the percentage change in manufacturing output between(a) 1996 and 1995 and (b) 1995 and 1994. [15160]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Manufacturing output was 2.2 per cent. higher in 1995 than it was in 1994. Last year it rose by a further 0.5 per cent. to reach its highest ever level. The Confederation of British Industry expects manufacturing output to grow by 3.4 per cent. in 1997.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the oil discharged into the North sea derives from United Kingdom licensed offshore oil rigs and platforms. [14866]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Figures from the Oslo and Paris commissions North sea quality status report, last published in 1993, indicate that the United Kingdom licensed offshore oil rigs and platforms were responsible for between 4 and 10 per cent. of the total oil input to the North sea.

  Companies (Investigation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is(a) the cost to date of each of the investigations currently being carried out under the Insurance Companies Acts, (b) the amounts which have been paid to each of the inspectors and (c) the basis on which they have been paid. [14913]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Investigations carried out under the Insurance Companies Acts are not announced and are confidential. Current inquiries are being carried out by departmental staff at no appreciable cost.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department collects about the involvement of United Kingdom accountancy firms in facilitating money laundering. [14843]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Any information received by the Department in relation to money laundering is passed to the national criminal intelligence service.

  Caparo Judgment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to reverse the Caparo judgment. [14790]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no such plans, but continue to keep this issue under review.

  Publicity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was his Department's expenditure on staff
  129
  employed full-time or part-time to provide (a) publicity and (b) work on domestic press and media for inward investment in each year since 1979–80. [15367]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Publicity in respect of inward investment is carried out by staff in various parts of the Department such as the Invest in Britain Bureau, information division and sector divisions but records are not kept at the level of detail required to provide the information requested.

  Royal Ordnance, Chorley
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current situation regarding Konver grant for the Royal Ordnance site in Chorley. [15375]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The Royal Ordnance site in Chorley has received European structural fund grants for projects from Konver I and Perifra. The Konver II working group for the north-west has been asked to consider the scope for offering some grant to support a further project on this site. I shall write to the hon. Member when this issue has been settled.

TRANSPORT

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the average time taken to complete major road schemes. [14572]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Reducing the time taken to complete road schemes is an objective of the Highways Agency. Figures taken from the agency's annual report for 1995–96 are given in the table. They show the average time taken, from programme entry to completion, for schemes completed in each year.

  1992–93: 15.0 years

  1993–94: 11.9 years

  1994–95: 11.4 years

  1995–96: 13.4 years.

  Of the 21 schemes analysed in 1995–96, five entered the programme over 20 years ago, one in 1969. If these schemes are taken out of the analysis, the average time reduces to 10.6 years, showing a gradual fall over the four-year period.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the longest time recorded to complete a road scheme begun after 1979. [14573]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The longest time recorded to complete a road scheme begun after 1979 is 15 years. The A65 Burley-in-Wharfdale bypass in west Yorkshire entered the programme in 1980 and was completed in 1995.

  London Transport Prestige Project
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the potential for third party revenue benefits from London Transport's prestige project. [15463]
  130
  Mr. Bowis
  London Transport is responsible for the prestige project and is currently in negotiation with a private sector consortium on a potential deal. Third party revenues are one of the matters subject to negotiation, but London Transport believes that the project has the potential to generate significant third party revenues from smart-card ticketing.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been permitted in the dimensions of heavy goods vehicles since the increase in lorry weights to 38 tonnes was implemented. [15348]

  Mr. Watts
  The maximum permitted weight of lorries increased to 38 tonnes in 1983. Since that date, the maximum permitted length of an articulated vehicle increased from 15.5m to 16.5m in 1990 and the maximum length of a lorry and trailer increased from 18.0m to 18.35m in 1991. The maximum width for refrigerated vehicles increased from 2.5m to 2.58m in 1986 and then to 2.6m in 1988. The maximum width of other types of lorry increased from 2.5m to 2.55m in 1996.

  Railtrack (Code of Conduct)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in respect of a code of conduct for Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [15343]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total costs incurred by the British Railways Board in the privatisation process in 1996–97 to date. [15400]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of the costs incurred by the British Railways Board in the privatisation process are a matter for the board itself. However, I understand from the board that up to 4 January 1997 the total costs incurred in 1996–97 were £40 million.

  Level Crossing Grant
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount was paid to Railtrack in level crossing grant for 1996–97; and what is the forecast level of the grant for 1997–98. [15347]

  Mr. Watts
  No level crossing grant was paid to Railtrack for 1996–97 and no such grant is forecast to be paid in 1997–98. With effect from 1 April 1996, level crossing grant ceased to be payable to Railtrack, which recovers the costs of maintaining level crossings through the access charges paid by train operating companies.

  Railways (Advice Costs)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the cost in 1996–97 of bought in advice for(a) the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and (b) the Office of the Rail Regulator. [15404]

  Mr. Watts
  My current estimate of these costs is(a) £32.2 million and (b) £1.2 million.
  131

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the preferred bidder for the west coast main line franchise. [14896]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director announced the choice of the Virgin Rail Group as the preferred bidder on 7 February.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the west coast main line franchise to be let. [14895]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director's target date for the commencement of franchised operations is March 1997.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the passenger service requirements for the west coast main line franchise; what plans he has for the modernisation of the line; and if he will make a statement. [14897]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director published the passenger service requirement on 11 February. He has entered into an infrastructure investment agreement with Railtrack which will allow for the operation of tilting trains and dramatically reduced journey times from 2002. This route represents an excellent opportunity for all parties. There are strong commercial incentives for the franchisee and Railtrack to build on it and develop an efficient, fast and competitive railway.

  Emissions 2000 Directive
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to seek to amend the European Commission's current proposals in its emissions 2000 directive, so as to ensure that the tools and electronic codes relating to on-board diagnostics for motor vehicles are available to members of the public; and what information he has as to the public availability of such codes in other OECD countries. [15156]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are seeking to ensure that all diagnostic fault codes, electronic communication protocols and connector sockets are standardised to enable interrogation by standard off-board instruments used by the repair industry. We are working closely with other member states and the Commission to achieve this objective.

  There is general agreement between member states that the fault codes should be based on a new ISO standard which will be publicly available. This standard is in turn based on a Society of Automotive Engineers standard which is already generally available in the United States.

  Towing Vessels
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the number of emergency towing vessels which patrol the southern English coast. [15001]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Coastguard agency has no plans to increase the number of emergency towing vessels which patrol this length of coast.
  132

  Vehicle Excise Duty Exemption
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the DSS allowances which qualify the recipients for vehicle excise duty exemption. [14388]

  Mr. Bowis
  The following DSS allowances currently qualify for vehicle excise duty exemption:

  1. War pensioners mobility supplement;

  2. Disability living allowance—

  a. for recipients of the higher rate of the mobility component;

  b. in respect of the care component;

  3. Attendance allowance.

  In the case of 2(b) and 3, however, only where the application for exemption was approved before 13 October 1993, and in the case of 3, only to those unable or virtually unable to walk.

SCOTLAND

  Parkhead Hospital
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he plans to respond to the recent report of the Scottish health advisory service on Parkhead hospital; and if he will make a statement. [13212]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Greater Glasgow health board and the Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS trust have developed a comprehensive action plan to address the issues highlighted in the SHAS report. Many of the required service improvements had been addressed by the trust before the report was published. The health board is monitoring progress on all the recommendations.

  Mr. Ian Dutton
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent on its contract with Thompson Partners in relation to the eventual recruitment of Mr. Ian Dutton; and what is the projected expenditure on the contract. [14151]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 5 February 1997]: Five thousand pounds was paid to Thompson Partners in respect of its work to identify persons who might be suitable to carry out the consultancy relating to self-governing schools matters.

  The projected expenditure on this consultancy is between £30,000 and £45,000.

  Skye Toll Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has issued a report in respect of the Skye toll bridge in accordance with section 41 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991; and if he will make a statement. [14627]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. Reports were laid before the House on 16 July 1992, 20 July 1993 and 28 June 1996.

  Crofting Townships (Woodland Planting)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the crofting townships which have applied to plant woodland on common grazing in each year since 1992, indicating in each case the number of hectares. [14644]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The townships which have applied to plant woodland are listed. Not all of these areas have been approved for grants.

  Township/common grazing

  Area (hectares)

  1993

  None

  1994

  Allt-Nan-Subh

  59

  Camusluinie 1

  72

  Marybank/Maryhill

  15

  Sandwick (East Street)

  100

  Scallasaig

  49

  Tong/Aird

  114

  1995

  Borve/Annishader

  20

  Calligary

  10

  Camusluinie 2

  48

  Culvid Wood

  30

  Doire-Aonar

  52

  Galson

  30

  Kylerhea

  6

  Sandwick (North Street)

  100

  Toscaig

  122

  1996

  Achorn

  4

  Allt-Nan-Subh

  59

  Ardmore

  16

  Ardvourlie

  100

  Backies

  64

  Borve and Annishadder 2

  64

  Creag Dharaich

  167

  Heather Parks

  20

  Feorlig

  100

  Fideach

  10

  Garrabost and New Garrabost

  74

  Glen

  25

  Luskentyre

  4

  Penifiler

  6

  Upper Coll

  100

  Strathcannaird

  9

  Vatten

  61

  1997 (to date)

  Camusluinie 3

  25

  Halladale

  6

  Laxay

  48

  Loch Crocach

  136

  Melbost and Branahuie

  65

  Modsarie

  9

  Satran

  3

  Scoraig

  104

  Shieldaig

  1

  Tarvie

  155

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of Government grant paid to support woodland planting on common grazing in crofting townships in each year since 1992. [14643]
  134
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The information is set out in the table:

  Year ending 31 March

  Grants paid (£000)

  1993

  Nil

  1994

  106

  1995

  106

  1996

  260

  1997 (to date)

  309

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make the Scottish Charities Office report on the affairs of the Algrade Trust available for inspection by legal representatives of the families of residents formerly at the Humbie home. [14938]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I refer the hon. Member to the Adjournment debate on 3 February 1997 before the Scottish Grand Committee, Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 3 February 1997, columns 41–50. It is not the practice of the Crown Office to make public reports on confidential inquiries into charities for the reasons set out in that speech.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments have been made by the Algrade Trust to Lothian regional council or the East Lothian council for repairs, redecoration and furnishing at Wedderburn house at Inveresk. [14940]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This information is not known to the Charities Office and was not necessary for the purposes of the investigation. It is a matter for the present trustees.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the plans of the Algrade Trust for the application of its £1.2 million accumulated profit. [14942]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These funds are already being used to fund the facilities at Wedderburn. The detailed application of funds is a matter for the present trustees.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the properties bequeathed to the Algrade Trust, or to one or more individual trustees of that body, by residents or relatives of residents who were at the Humbie home. [14937]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate that there are no known heritable properties which have been bequeathed to the Algrade Trust or to one or more individual trustees of that body by residents or relatives of residents who were at the Humbie home.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments have been made by the Algrade Trust to the Church of Scotland board of social responsibility for the care of residents at and from the Humbie home in 1995 and 1996. [14939]
  135
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not known to the Charities Office and was not necessary for the purposes of the investigation. It is a matter for the present trustees.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what profits were generated by the Algrade Trust in each year between 1969 and 1995. [14941]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The accumulated surplus income over expenditure is £1.2 million, as explained in my speech at the Adjournment debate. The further information sought is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The information comes within the confidentiality of the investigation.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the instances of maladministration at the Algrade Trust which have been identified by the Scottish Charities Office. [14926]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The accounts were not up to the standard required by the supervision legislation. There was an inability on the part of the trustees to cope with management responsibilities owing to their advancing years. The trustees had the benefit of remuneration from the trust. There was a reluctance over many years to work with the supervisory social work department.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision has been made by the Algrade Trust for residents from the Humbie home following their transfer to the care of the Church of Scotland board of social responsibility. [14927]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The responsibility for the residents remains with the Algrade Trust and not with the Church of Scotland board of social responsibility, which acts as the agent of the Algrade Trust in the day-to-day management of the premises and is paid for its services.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the charitable works and responsibilities undertaken by the Algrade Trust since the beginning of 1996. [14928]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The charitable works and responsibilities of the trust remain as they have always been. That is principally the provision of care for residents.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the staffing costs of the Algrade Trust of £2.2 million from 1969 to 1995 to show the number of staff and the expenditure in each year expressed in total and per resident. [14929]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information comes within the confidentiality of the investigation. The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the food and household costs of the Algrade Trust of £0.8 million between 1969 and 1995 to show the expenditure each year expressed in total and per resident. [14930]
  136
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information comes within the confidentiality of the investigation. The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the property maintenance costs of the Algrade Trust of £0.86 million between 1969 and 1995 to show the expenditure in each year expressed in total and per resident. [14931]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The information comes within the confidentiality of the investigation.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the transport and administration costs of the Algrade Trust of £1.2 million between 1969 and 1995 to show the expenditure each year expressed in total and per resident. [14932]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information comes within the confidentiality of the investigation. The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the spending of the Algrade Trust of £0.24 million on pocket money for residents between 1969 and 1995 to show the expenditure in each year expressed in total and per resident. [14933]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The information comes within the confidentiality of the investigation.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the 14 properties acquired by the former Algrade trustees, giving(a) the dates of acquisition and purchase prices, (b) where relevant, the dates of disposal and sale price, and (c) the valuation in 1996 of those still owned by the trust. [14934]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were 13 properties purchased by the trustees. A further property, the Good Templar hall, known as the Gospel hall, was a gift. The value of these properties in 1996 is not known. So far as the 14 properties referred to in the Adjournment debate are concerned, the dates of acquisitions and purchase prices and the dates of disposal and sale are set out in the following schedule:
  137

  Date of property

  Date of acquisition

  Price

  Sale

  Price

  1. 9 Upper Keith Cottage, Humbie

  18 May 1979

  £18,000

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  2. 1–2 Cockburn Square, Pathhead

  28 October 1983

  £36,000

  2 June 1990

  £36,000

  3. Browseat (Maranatha), Humbie

  2 December 1983

  £46,000

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  4. Good Templar Hall, Pathhead (known as The Gospel Hall)

  20 April 1984

  No consideration

  16 June 1990

  No consideration

  5. Algrade school

  21 September 1988

  £300,000

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  6. 10 Upper Keith Cottage, Humbie

  Constructed by Algrade Trust

  Not applicable

  21 July 1989

  Not applicable

  7. 11 Upper Keith Cottage, Humbie

  Constructed by Algrade Trust

  Not applicable

  21 July 1989

  £26,000

  8. 29 Oxenfoord Drive, Pathhead

  4 June 1990

  £99,500

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  9. 44 Main Street, Pathhead

  10 December 1992

  £67,162

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  10. 46 Main Street, Pathhead

  10 December 1992

  £67,162

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  11. 34 Main Street, Pathhead

  16 March 1993

  £17,500

  1993—No disposition followed conclusion of missives, although the price was paid

  £17,500

  12. 1 Chapel Close, Pathhead

  12 October 1994

  £110,000

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  13. 40 Main Street, Pathhead

  25 November 1994

  £69,500

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  14. 42 Main Street, Pathhead

  25 November 1994

  £69,500

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on property transactions between the Algrade Trust and trustees of that body, showing the date of conveyance and the price received or paid for each property. [14935]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the first five undernoted transactions, the trust transferred the properties to the trustees. In the final case, the property was acquired by the trust by way of gift:

  Property

  Date

  Price £

  10 Upper Keith Cottage, Humbie

  21 July 1989

  26,000

  11 Upper Keith Cottage, Humbie

  21 July 1989

  26,000

  1/2 Cockburn Square, Pathhead

  2 June 1990

  36,000

  34 Main Street, Pathhead 19931

  £17,500

  —

  The Good Templar Hall, Pathhead

  16 June 1990

  No consideration

  Copsewood, Shore Road, Tighnabruaich

  30 October 1974

  No consideration

  1 No disposition followed conclusion of missives although the price was paid.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of the property of the Algrade Trust at the former Humbie home; what conditions affecting the sale of that property are included in its title deeds; and if the trust has plans to sell it. [14936]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current value of the property is not known. The sale of the property is a matter for the trustees. The exact conditions attached to sales are not readily available and cannot be ascertained except at disproportionate cost. They are contained within the title deeds of the property which are publicly available at the Registers of Scotland.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total budget allocation for self-governing schools in Scotland for each of the past three years; and what is the budget for expenditure in the current year. [15173]
  138
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994–95: £429,000

  1995–96: £559,000

  1996–97: £741,000 (Estimated outturn).

  These figures include annual recurrent grants, capital and other current grants payable in each financial year to Dornoch academy and St. Mary's episcopal primary school, since they became self-governing schools on 1 April 1994 and 20 October 1995 respectively. No expenditure is expected in 1996–97 in respect of Fort William primary school, which becomes a self-governing school on 1 August 1997.

WALES

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of local government reorganisation in Wales on the latest date for which information is available; how much has been spent on redundancy payments; how many newly appointed chief executives have taken early retirement less than one year after the reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [14590]

  Mr. Hague
  The total cost of local government reorganisation is not available centrally. However, up to and including the current financial year, £87.5 million has been made available to local authorities as a contribution to reorganisation-related costs. A further £17.9 million will be available in 1997–98. Of the total available to support reorganisation, £28.3 million has been earmarked for related redundancy costs, of which £19.3 million has been spent. A further £10.1 million will be made available in 1997–98.

  To date, no newly appointed chief executive has taken early retirement.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from people in Wales on the subject of the pay review in respect of Welsh nurses; and if he will make a statement. [14414]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. The recommended pay increase of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Pay Review Body has been accepted and will be implemented in two stages from 1 April and 1 December 1997.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14467]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of staff in my Department who provide advice on equal opportunities is 1.5, full-time equivalent, at a cost of £35,610 for 1996–97.

  NHS Salaries and Wages
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list NHS salaries and wages costs for(a) general and senior managers, (b) nurses and midwives and (c) administrative and clerical staff for the financial years (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [14597]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested on NHS salaries and wages costs is as follows:

  £000

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) General/senior managers

  38,753

  42,605

  (b) Nurses and midwives

  433,661

  442,604

  (c) Administrative and clerical staff

  110,620

  118,049

  Source:

  Annual Accounts/Financial Returns of Welsh Health bodies.

  Dr. William Price
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with Cadw its decision not to take steps to safeguard the birthplace of Dr. William Price, near Machen; and if he will make a statement. [14685]

  Mr. Hague
  Cadw's assessment of the Greenmeadow inn, Waterloo, Machen, has been made by reference to the criteria applied in the identification of all buildings of special architectural or historic importance.

  The building's probable association with Dr. William Price and his place in Welsh history, which is not disputed, have been important considerations in the assessment. But the extent of that association and the building's architectural characteristics do not amount to a case which would justify statutory protection.

  Health Service Vacancies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many vacancies there are currently for(a) doctors and (b) nurses in NHS hospitals in (i) Clwyd and (ii) Powys; and if he will make a statement. [14891]
  140
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy on green belts for Wales. [15146]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  "Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy", which was published in May 1996, contains Government planning policy guidance on green belts in Wales.

  A465 (Accidents)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 290, on accidents on the A465 since 1979, how many non-personal injury accidents there were during this period. [14885]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Only data on personal injury road accidents are forwarded to the Welsh Office. South Wales police do not compile statistics on non-personal injury road accidents.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to reply to the letter of 9 January from Mrs. Betty Williams concerning the proposed development at Llandudno. [15252]

  Mr. Hague
  Mrs. Williams's letter was not received by the Welsh Office until 28 January; a reply will be sent by 19 February.

  Capital Challenge
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 12 December,Official Report, column 407, if he will make a statement on the tourist development in Llandudno which he proposes to support under the Welsh capital challenge. [15251]

  Mr. Hague
  The joint public-private sector project sponsored by Conwy county borough council to provide a street tramway in Llandudno was successful in gaining support under Welsh capital challenge along with the other projects which I approved because they best meet the scheme's criteria for support.

  Claimant Numbers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many families in Wales draw child benefit; and if he will make a statement; [13876]

  (2) how many pensioners in Wales received the Christmas bonus; and if he will make a statement. [13895]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The administration of child benefit and the Christmas bonus is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  141
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 6 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many families in Wales draw Child Benefit and how many pensioners in Wales received the Christmas Bonus.
  At 30 September 1996 there were 350,000 families in Wales in receipt of Child Benefit. This figure is based on a one percent sample of the Child Benefit computer system, rounded to the nearest thousand and excludes late notifications of children returning to full time education.
  To receive payment of the Christmas Bonus, a pensioner must be entitled to one of the following benefits for a period which includes a day in a prescribed week in December:- 'Retirement Pension (RP), Income Support (for those over state pension age), Widows Pension (WP), Incapacity Benefit Long Term (IBLT), Attendance Allowance (AA), Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Invalid Care Allowance (ICA), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), and War Widows' Pensions'. Beneficiaries may receive a second payment for their partner if they are both over state pensionable age and they are entitled to an increase to the qualifying benefit for that person.
  At 31 March 1996 there were approximately 533,000 people in Wales in receipt of RP. At 24 February 1996 there were approximately 14,000 pensioners, including partners, in receipt of Income Support in Wales. This figure includes claims where a partner of a customer is a pensioner, but the customer is not, and the partner has no qualification for the christmas bonus. These figures are based on five per cent samples.
  At 31 March 1996 there were 3000 pensioners in receipt of WP and at 31 August 1996 there were 23,000 pensioners in receipt of IBLT, in Wales. The number of pensioners in receipt of AA, DLA, ICA, SDA and War Widows Pension could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Figures are given for the latest dates available and are rounded to the nearest thousand.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ostriches
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ostriches have been slaughtered for consumption in each of the last 12 months; what quantity is exported abroad; and if he will make a statement. [13623]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 31 January 1997]: The slaughter of ostriches for human consumption must be carried out in a slaughterhouse licensed under the poultry meat hygiene regulations or in exempt on-farm premises which comply with general food hygiene legislation.

  Slaughterhouses are licensed by the respective Agriculture Department. To date the Ministry has not granted any slaughterhouse in England a licence to handle ostriches. Small numbers will have been killed in exempt on-farm premises during the last 12 months, but no figures are available. Meat produced in exempt premises is not eligible for export.

  Post-Chernobyl Restrictions
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and areas of the holdings(a) which have been exempted from the post-Chernobyl restrictions following the announcement of 22 January and (b) which still remain under restrictions. [14367]
  142
  Mr. Boswell
  The total area under restrictions in Cumbria following the announcement on 22 January 1997 is approximately 12,200 hectares comprising 48 holdings. Within this area 37 holdings covering about 9,230 hectares have been granted exemptions from the provisions of the order and 11 holdings covering about 2,970 hectares still remain under controls.

  It has not been the policy of the Agriculture Department to release the names of individual holdings.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the use of animal protein in feed for animals intended for human consumption was banned in(a) the Irish Republic and (b) each of the other EU countries. [14775]

  Mrs. Browning
  In Ireland the use of mammalian protein in ruminant feedstuffs was first prohibited from 13 August 1990.

  We do not have detailed information on the legislation in place in each of the other member states. Community decision 94/381 of 27 June 1994 required all member states to ban the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants. In member states with a system which makes it possible to distinguish between protein from ruminant and non-ruminant species—such as Denmark—the ban is limited to the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants.

  We are not aware of any controls in other member states on the feeding of mammalian protein to animals for human consumption other than ruminants.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14808]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department uses the Royal Mail's postcode address file to validate name and address data in relation to certain grants and subsidies payments to farmers and is considering further opportunities in this area. The potential for using the postcode to geo-reference agricultural holding data is also under consideration.

  BSE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been identified in imported cattle. [14773]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have confirmed BSE in 10 animals imported from other member states. No cases have been recorded from other countries. It is possible that all but one of these animals were infected with BSE in the UK. There is only one case where infection in the country of origin seems probable, its period of residence in the United Kingdom being too short to permit development of disease.

  A further imported case is currently under investigation.
  143
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many instances of BSE in cattle have been reported in the Irish Republic in each of the past 10 years. [14772]

  Mrs. Browning
  the number of confirmed cases of BSE in cattle reported in the Republic of Ireland since the first case was reported is:

  Year

  Confirmed cases of BSE

  1989

  15

  1990

  14

  1991

  17

  1992

  18

  1993

  16

  1994

  19

  1995

  16

  1996

  73

  Total

  188

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what control measures to ensure that

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Anthrax1

  2

  2

  3

  1

  3

  Avian Influenza2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contagious Equine Metritis1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

  36,682

  34,370

  23,994

  14,298

  37,202

  Brucellosis

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis

  4

  63

  26

  7

  5

  Equine Viral Arteritis

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Paramyxovirus of pigeons2

  157

  103

  36

  26

  22

  Newcastle Disease2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rabies

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Scrapie

  5—

  327

  199

  163

  3207

  Tuberculosis (in cattle)6

  155

  274

  362

  449

  7—

  Tuberculosis (in Deer)6

  1

  1

  1

  2

  7—

  Viral Haemorrhagic Disease (in rabbits)1

  2

  10

  200

  512

  8269

  Warble Fly

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1 Figures denote number of outbreaks which may involve more than one animal.

  2 Figures denote outbreaks in flocks which may involve more than one bird.

  3 Provisional.

  4 One case of European Bat Lyssavirus 2 which did not affect the UK's status as a rabies free country.

  5 Scrapie only became a notifiable disease on 1 January 1993.

  6 Figures denote confirmed herd breakdowns which may involve more than one animal.

  7 Figures not available until June 1997.

  8 Viral haemorrhagic disease of rabbits ceased to be a notifiable disease on 21 October 1996.

  Rabies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the reports into the possible danger of introducing rabies in imported animals carried out(a) by the European Commission in 1991 and (b) by the New Zealand Department of Agriculture in 1994; and if he will place copies of those reports in the Library. [14983]

  Mrs. Browning
  Both reports are being taken into account in the current review of rabies control policy. Copies of the reports have already been placed in the Library.

  Beef Waste
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the 144
  the cohorts of imported cattle which develop BSE are traced in their country of origin have been notified to his Department. [14774]

  Mrs. Browning
  In cases where it is believed that an imported animal was infected with BSE in its country of origin, the chief veterinary officer of the country concerned will be notified, and an epidemiological report requested. If it is established that the animal has been infected there, it will be for the veterinary authorities in that country to take appropriate action in relation to animals associated with that case. Where the imported animal has been infected in this country, there will be no tracing back to the country of origin.

  Notifiable Disease
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cases of each notifiable disease over the past five years. [14857]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The number of cases of each notifiable disease over the last five years is as follows:

  locations of landfill sites where non-domestic beef waste products have been landfilled in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996, and the quantity, in tonnes, at each site; [15411]

  (2) how many tonnes of beef, and beef products, have been disposed of to landfill in each year since 1979; [15409]

  (3) what regulations govern the disposal to landfill of (a) beef and beef products from household food waste, (b) beef bought by the Intervention Board, (c) specified bovine material, (d) cattle diagnosed with BSE and (e) ash from BSE infected cattle which have been incinerated. [15410]

  Mr. Baldry
  The landfilling of waste is governed by the terms of waste management licences issued by the Environment Agency under section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—the 1990 Act—which, among other matters, specifies the types of waste and quantities of waste which may be disposed of in each
  145
  site. Operators of landfill sites are required by paragraph 14 of schedule 4 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994—the 1994 regulations—to:

  (a) keep a record of the quantity, nature and origin of the waste which they dispose of;

  (b) to make that information available, on request, to the Environment Agency;

  (c) to comply with the duty of care under section 34 of the 1990 Act and the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991.

  The Environment Agency is required by section 64 of the 1990 Act and regulation 10 of the 1994 regulations to maintain a public register of licensed landfill sites. It does not, however, hold centrally information about the types and quantities of waste disposed of in landfill sites and this could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Regarding cattle waste potentially infected with BSE, cattle suspected of showing clinical signs of the disease are disposed of by direct incineration in plants contracted to MAFF which are subject to authorisation by the Environment Agency or relevant local authority under part I of the 1990 Act. Specified bovine material, the tissues most likely to contain any BSE infectivity, is removed from cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme or for human consumption and consigned for rendering or direct incineration.

  The independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has considered the current and proposed methods of dealing with waste material from the slaughter of cattle and concluded that these are safe. A press release reporting its conclusions was issued by MAFF on 7 June 1996 and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the incinerators and (b) power stations and their locations which have been considered for burning the rendered remains of BSE cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme. [15406]

  Mr. Baldry
  BSE suspects are not slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme—OTMS, this is expressly prohibited under Commission regulation 716/96. Such animals are slaughtered and their carcases sent for direct incineration.

  Regarding the destruction of the rendered remains of cattle slaughtered under the OTMS, currently only one commercial incinerator—Rechem at Fawley, Hampshire—is burning meat and bonemeal derived from OTMS cattle and the rendering company, Prosper De Mulder at Widnes, is currently burning a small amount of OTMS tallow. However, a number of proposals should emerge from a tender exercise initiated by the Intervention Board in December 1996 which, subject to satisfactory trials, should increase existing incineration capacity for burning MBM—meat and bonemeal—and tallow.

  Combustion trials have been carried out at PowerGen's test facilities at Ratcliffe on Soar, Nottinghamshire, and National Power's test facilities at Didcot, Oxfordshire to establish the feasibility of burning rendered animal waste in power stations under a strict protocol set by the Environment Agency. The fact that trials have been conducted at these sites, however, does not imply that the adjacent power stations would necessarily be chosen for full-scale burning. The test results will be fully evaluated, before any decision is reached on the way forward and an
  146
  announcement will be made to Parliament. Full weight will be given in any such decision to the protection of human health and the environment.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incinerators and their locations which have been licensed to burn the rendered remains of BSE cattle slaughtered under the over 30-months-scheme. [15405]

  Mr. Baldry
  BSE suspects are not slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme—OTMS. This is expressly prohibited under Commission regulation 716/96. Such animals are slaughtered and their carcases sent for direct incineration.

  The high temperature incinerator at Fawley, Hampshire, which is operated by Rechem International Ltd., is authorised by the Environment Agency under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to burn MBM from over-30-months scheme cattle. The Intervention Board executive agency has agreed a contract with the company for the incineration of MBM at this site.

  The rendering company Prosper De Mulder, at Widnes, is currently burning a small amount of OTMS tallow and is authorised by the relevant local authority.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  BSE
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research was(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department on the threat of BSE to human beings; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which such research is being co-ordinated (i) with other countries and (ii) by the European Union Commission. [14273]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has commissioned an extensive programme of research to support control measures for BSE and to protect both human and animal health. A list of this research has been placed in the Library of the House. The results of the research are evaluated by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee which also advises the Government on future research.

  Research commissioned by MAFF is complemented by the research programmes of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health, the Scottish Office Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust. This research in the UK is now co-ordinated through the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy research funders group. A new high-level committee has been set up in the Cabinet Office whose task is to ensure that the TSE research programme progresses as rapidly and effectively as possible.

  Research in the EU is co-ordinated through the offices of directorate general XII and directorate general VI. This was consolidated in November 1996 on the basis of a report from an advisory committee on TSE research requirements in Europe. A call has been made for research proposals on TSEs under the framework IV programme

  147
  to cover areas identified as requiring further research. Programme co-ordinators from the UK have made a significant input to the EU advisory committee and the standing committees dealing with the research.

  The number of centres actively engaged in TSE research in other European countries is relatively small, but expanding. The research scientists and programme managers in the UK are in constant communication with the centres in European and other countries and there is exchange of information, ideas, materials and, where appropriate, direct collaboration. There is no formal international co-ordination so far, and each country largely supports the research required to meet its national requirements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dangerous Driving
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average sentence for motorists who caused a driving-related fatality and had been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, in each of the last five years; [14924]

  (2) what percentage of drivers convicted of a road traffic offence in which someone has died were indicted on the charge of (a) careless and inconsiderate driving and (b) causing death by dangerous driving, in each of the last five years; [14922]

  (3) how many drivers have been charged, in the last year for which figures are available, with careless and inconsiderate driving after causing a death on the roads; [14875]

  (4) what was the average sentence for motorists who caused a driving-related fatality and had been charged with careless and inconsiderate driving, in each of the last five years; [14923]

  (5) if he will list the number of occasions on which drivers being charged with causing death by dangerous driving, have had the alternative verdict of careless and inconsiderate driving substituted by the court, in the last five years. [14876]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 10 February 1997]: The available information is shown in the table.

  Information on the original charges brought and original offences contained in indictments are not available centrally. The information contained in the table, therefore, is based on the offence for which the court took its final decision. Nor is it known centrally whether careless driving prosecutions involve a fatality.

  Motoring offences of 'causing death' 1991–95

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Offence type

  Causing death by reckless/dangerous driving1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Prosecutions

  431

  339

  352

  301

  305

  Total convictions

  360

  320

  258

  234

  247

  of which:

  Non-custodial sentences

  97

  99

  72

  56

  67

  Custodial sentences

  263

  221

  186

  178

  180

  148

  Motoring offences of 'causing death' 1991–95

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Offence type

  Causing death by reckless/dangerous driving1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Average custodial sentence (months)

  19

  22

  23

  28

  36

  1 The Road Traffic Act 1991, effective from 1 July 1992, amended the charge of "causing death by reckless driving" to one of "causing death by dangerous driving" and added a new offence of "causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs".

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Offence type

  Causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Prosecutions

  —

  6

  63

  48

  51

  Total convictions

  —

  1

  29

  49

  52

  of which:

  Non-custodial sentences

  —

  —

  9

  5

  8

  Custodial sentences

  —

  1

  20

  44

  44

  Average custodial sentence (months)

  —

  21

  20

  31

  35

  1 The Road Traffic Act 1991, effective from 1 July 1992, amended the charge of "causing death by reckless driving" to one of "causing death by dangerous driving" and added a new offence of "causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs".

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Offence type

  Causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs1

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Prosecutions

  —

  111

  27

  26

  13

  Total convictions

  —

  49

  26

  24

  24

  of which

  Non-custodial sentences

  —

  33

  5

  7

  4

  Custodial sentences

  —

  16

  21

  17

  20

  Average custodial sentence (months)

  —

  9

  18

  17

  17

  1 Offence added by the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992, effective from 1 April 1992.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters of complaint have been received by His Department in respect of lenient sentences for drivers who have been involved in causing a driving-related fatality; and what percentage of all letters of complaint received by his Department this represented in the last year for which figures are available. [14879]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: During 1996, the Home Office received in the region of 200 letters from hon. Members and 1,300 letters from members of the public about the sentencing decisions of the courts. Of these, 31 or 15 per cent. and 20 or 1.5 per cent. respectively concerned what were perceived to be lenient sentences for drivers involved in a driving-related fatality.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of drivers convicted of a driving-related fatality in(a) the

  149
  five years preceding the implementation of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and (b) the five years following that implementation. [14878]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The available information relates to the number of convictions in England and Wales for causing death by reckless driving between 1987 and 1991, and for causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by aggravated vehicle taking between 1992 and 1995; the Road Traffic Act 1991 was effective from 1 July 1992.

  The information is as follows:

  Convictions for causing death by dangerous driving etc. England and Wales

  Number

  1987

  322

  1988

  272

  1989

  379

  1990

  358

  1991

  360

  1992

  370

  1993

  313

  1994

  306

  1995

  323

  Figures for 1996 are not yet available.

  Dog Breeders
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 754–55, if local authorities can impose licence conditions on dog breeders who own licensed establishments. [15449]

  Mr. Sackville
  In considering whether to grant a licence under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, a local authority is required to ensure that the following conditions are met:that the dogs will at all times be kept in accommodation suitable as respects construction, size of quarters, number of occupants, exercising facilities, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness;
  that the dogs will be adequately supplied with suitable food, drink and bedding material, adequately exercised and, so far as necessary, visited at suitable intervals;
  that all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent and control the spread among dogs of infectious or contagious diseases;
  that appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of the dogs in case of fire or other emergency; and
  that all appropriate steps will be taken to secure that the dogs will be provided with suitable food, drink and bedding material and adequately exercised when being transported to or from the breeding establishment.

  A local authority has discretion to specify other relevant conditions, and can withhold a licence if any condition so specified is not met.

  Rochester Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many immigration detainees are currently held in HMP Rochester; [13284]
  150
  (2) on what date inmates on hunger strike in HMP Rochester first refused food; [13285]

  (3) how many immigration detainees are currently refusing food in HMP Rochester; [13286]

  (4) if he will list the nationalities and immigration status of the prisoners currently on hunger strike at HMP Rochester; [13287]

  (5) if he will list the number of prisoners, by category and status, currently on hunger strike in each of Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement; [13288]

  (6) what medical facilities from (a) HMP medical service and (b) the NHS have been offered to prisoners refusing food at HMP Rochester; [13289]

  (7) what general visiting restrictions currently apply at HMP Rochester; and if he will make a statement; [13292]

  (8) what recent visits have been made to HMP Rochester by (a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons and (b) officials from his Department. [13293]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 29 January 1997]: As of 10 February 1997, 169 Immigration Act detainees were held at Rochester detainee centre, Her Majesty's prison Rochester. Meal refusals began on 6 January, when some 70 detainees on D wing started to refuse prison food in protest at their detention under Immigration Act powers. Since that time, there has been a gradual and steady return to eating. At 0800 hours on 10 February, three detainees were refusing food, although the numbers fluctuate.

  It would be contrary to normal practice to give the details of individual detainees, but the three food refusers at Rochester comprise two illegal entrants and one passenger refused entry.

  Excluding the immigration detainees who are refusing food at Rochester detainee centre, the details of other people held in prison refusing prison prepared meals are as follows:

  Bristol: one category A male on remand

  Belmarsh: one sentenced category A male

  Dartmoor: one sentenced category C male

  There is a well equipped health care centre at Rochester prison and detainees have access to medical care comparable with that which would be provided by a general practitioner. There is medical officer cover 24 hours per day, either within the prison or "on call" supported by 24-hour nursing cover. This includes a nurse attending each day between 9am and 9pm specifically allocated to the immigration detainees who are refusing food.

  Detainees can apply to see the medical officer at any time, and can be admitted to the health care centre if their health gives cause for concern. Where appropriate, the medical officer will arrange for a detainee to be referred under guard for national health service treatment. To date, four of the detainees originally refusing food and fluids have received treatment at the Medway hospital, and one has been admitted to the Maidstone hospital and one to the Stockton Hall hospital.

  Domestic visits for immigration detainees at Rochester prison occur from Monday to Saturday between 2pm and 4.30pm, during which time up to three adults and children

  151
  may visit. There are no restrictions on the number of visits, but visits must be booked in advance. No visiting orders are required. Legal representatives may visit from Monday to Friday between 9am and 11.30am or between 2pm and 4.30pm, but such visits must be booked in advance.

  A full inspection of Rochester prison by a team from Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons took place in the week commencing 30 October 1995.

  The area manager for Kent visited the establishment on 10 October 1996, 29 November 1996 and 14 January 1997, and a director of the immigration service visited on 22 October 1996. The director of operations visited on Wednesday 5 February and the Director General of the Prison Service on 7 February. Immigration officials attend the establishment daily to deal with questions from immigration detainees about their cases. There are also periodic visits by other staff from the immigration and nationality department.

  Police Complaints Authority Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has not issued any guidance to police forces on the use of pepper spray. It is for chief police officers to decide what defensive equipment to issue to their officers. None has issued pepper sprays.

  The use of any force is the responsibility of the individual officer concerned, and is governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting the lawful arrest of suspected offenders.
  152
  The Home Office police scientific development branch initially reviewed data on the effects of oleoresin capsicum on human health in response to a request from the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider its use to incapacitate ferocious dogs used by drug dealers.

  Pet Animals Act
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions local authorities may place on licences granted to premises under the Pet Animals Act 1951. [15424]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 1(3) of the Pet Animals Act 1951 confers a wide discretion on local authorities to take into account any relevant factor in determining the suitability of individual premises.

  Departmental Decisions (Judicial Review)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions by his Department were challenged through judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decisions. [14375]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has been involved in several thousand judicial review applications since 1991–92 and has been successful in more than 90 per cent. of them. The detailed information requested is not readily available.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Lord Cullen's recommendation that the Government consult on the role which police surgeons might play in advising chief officers of police on applications for firearms certificates. [15564]

  Mr. Howard
  In their response to Lord Cullen's inquiry—Cm 3392—the Government accepted Lord Cullen's recommendation that interested bodies should be consulted on this issue. I have duly consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Medical Association and the British Shooting Sports Council, but there has been no support for it from any of these parties. All saw practical or ethical difficulties with the idea. The Association of Police Surgeons has since withdrawn this proposal in view of lack of support for it in other parts of the medical profession.

  I am grateful to the Association of Police Surgeons for its constructive efforts in seeking a way of resolving these difficult questions, but I have concluded that this is not a proposal which can be taken further.

  Police Complaints Authority (Appointments)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new appointments have been made to the Police Complaints Authority. [15565]
  153
  Mr. Howard
  Mr. Alan Potts has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. Mr. Potts previously served as chief executive of Arun district council. He will serve for three years, with effect from 6 January 1997.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the incidents of money laundering referred to the National Criminal Intelligence Service during 1996–97, indicating the sources of information and the number of referrals about and from(a) accountants and (b) lawyers. [14784]

  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of disclosures of suspicious financial transactions made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service under the money laundering legislation so far in the present financial year is 11,610. Disclosures have been made by:

  Accountants and solicitors

  Banks and building societies

  Bureaux de change

  Credit/payment companies

  Financial regulators

  Gaming organisations

  Independent financial advisers

  Insurance companies

  Motor groups

  Others1

  1 Sources which individually make up less than 0.2 per cent. of the total number of disclosures and which are not recorded separately.

  NCIS does not record the profession of individuals to whom financial disclosures relate. However, of the total number of financial disclosures received, accountants have submitted 44 and solicitors 217.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of persons who(a) having applied for political asylum are awaiting (i) first determination or (ii) determination of an appeal or judicial review and (b) are awaiting departure or deportation; and if he will list the number and distributions of all such categories in local authority areas of the United Kingdom. [14955]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 December 1996, there were 55,635 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom awaiting an initial decision. As at the same date, 1,340 asylum appeals were awaiting validation and preparation by the asylum directorate and 20,455 asylum appeals were awaiting a hearing by adjudicators at the Immigration Appeals Authority. In addition, there were a further 545 asylum appeals outstanding at the immigration appeals tribunal. A regional breakdown of these data is not centrally recorded.

  Information on the number of asylum-related judicial reviews awaiting a decision, or on the number of persons awaiting departure or deportation is not available.
  154

  Police Bill
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on further amendments to part III of the Police Bill[Lords]. [15476]

  Mr. Howard
  Contradictory amendments to part III of the Police Bill were passed in another place. The Government do not believe that either of these amendments is acceptable as it stands. Further amendment is therefore essential.

  I have considered carefully the points raised during the debate. There are two key principles that I believe must be maintained. First, the authorisation of intrusive operations should remain the responsibility of chief officers. There should be effective external scrutiny of those decisions but they should not be the subject of second guessing. Secondly, chief officers must remain fully accountable for their decisions and remain liable to answer in court as to why they have authorised these operations. They should also be answerable for any complaint arising from the authorisation of an operation and be liable to be named in the annual report of the commissioner for any wrongly authorised operation.

  Accordingly, I shall table amendments which will provide:
  that responsibility for authorising operations should be that of the chief officer;
  that the prior approval of a commissioner will be required where there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation could affect legal, medical or journalistic privilege or where the operation involves intrusion into residential dwellings, offices and hotel bedrooms. Prior approval would not be necessary where the chief officer was acting with the consent of the person able to give permission in respect of the relevant premises or in urgent cases;
  that the commissioner will approve an authorisation if he is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing that the action is likely to be of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime and that what the action seeks to achieve could not reasonably be achieved by other means;
  a right of appeal to the chief commissioner against a decision taken by the commissioner;
  for commissioners to serve for a fixed period of three years, and for their removal from office within that period to require the consent of both Houses.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amounts retained by GP fundholders by health authority at the end of each financial year since the introduction of GP fundholding. [13651]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about efficiency savings made by general practitioner fundholders for 1995–96 is not yet available. Figures for 1994–95 are given in the table. For years prior to 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 16 March 1995,Official Report column 704. GP fundholder savings are available to be reinvested for the benefit of patients in accordance with regulations.
  155

  Amount of fundholder savings in 1994–95 by family health services authority

  FHSA name

  Amount of retained savings (£000)

  Cleveland

  939

  Cumbria

  902

  Durham

  1,458

  Northumberland

  1,170

  Gateshead

  194

  Newcastle

  322

  North Tyneside

  231

  South Tyneside

  579

  Sunderland

  217

  Humberside

  2,113

  North Yorkshire

  2,476

  Bradford

  1,335

  Calderdale

  183

  Kirklees

  758

  Leeds

  1,728

  Wakefield

  1,198

  Derbyshire

  2,730

  Leicestershire

  1,395

  Lincolnshire

  2,435

  Nottinghamshire

  1,269

  Barnsley

  309

  Doncaster

  337

  Rotherham

  887

  Sheffield

  1,497

  Cambridgeshire

  577

  Norfolk

  875

  Suffolk

  756

  Bedfordshire

  752

  Berkshire

  2,215

  Buckinghamshire

  2,090

  Northamptonshire

  484

  Oxfordshire

  1,515

  Hertfordshire

  3,072

  Barnet

  537

  Brent and Harrow

  827

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  114

  Hillingdon

  163

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  738

  Essex

  1,437

  Barking and Havering

  289

  Camden and Islington

  17

  City and East London

  208

  Enfield and Haringey

  199

  Redbridge and Waltham

  296

  East Sussex

  447

  Kent

  1,981

  Greenwich and Bexley

  1,630

  Bromley

  151

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  948

  Surrey

  1,380

  West Sussex

  800

  Croydon

  319

  Kingston and Richmond

  1,176

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,725

  Dorset

  470

  Hampshire

  2,038

  Wiltshire

  1,318

  Isle of Wight

  275

  Avon

  1,458

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  720

  Devon

  2,037

  Gloucestershire

  822

  Somerset

  520

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  3,921

  Shropshire

  1,033

  Staffordshire

  0

  Warwickshire

  1,130

  Birmingham

  3,610

  Coventry

  1,236

  Dudley

  605

  156

  Amount of fundholder savings in 1995– by family health services authority

  FHSA name

  Amount of retained savings (£000)

  Sandwell

  894

  Solihull

  601

  Walsall

  512

  Wolverhampton

  434

  Cheshire

  1,218

  Liverpool

  441

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  542

  Sefton

  592

  Wirral

  102

  Lancashire

  1,931

  Bolton

  367

  Bury

  334

  Manchester

  666

  Oldham

  295

  Rochdale

  260

  Salford

  372

  Stockport

  799

  Tameside

  166

  Trafford

  37

  Wigan

  403

  Source:

  NHS Executive regional offices.

  VAT (Incontinence Products)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement in respect of the implications for the North Staffordshire Combined Health Care Trust of costs incurred in the event of the VAT tribunal ruling that VAT be applied to incontinence products. [14334]

  Mr. Burns
  The outcome of the tribunal will have no impact on the requirement on trusts to pay value added tax on incontinence products supplied to the national health service.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14468]

  Mr. Horam
  There is one full-time and one part-time member of staff who are employed solely to provide advice on equal opportunities in the Department of Health. In addition, a small proportion of their manager's time, other personnel officers' time and some administrative support are devoted to this responsibility.

  Asthma
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each regional health authority the number of hospital admissions for asthma for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement. [14887]

  Mr. Horam
  The table gives information on hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of asthma from 1989–90 to 1994–95—respectively the earliest and most recent years for which figures are available.
  157

  Hospital admissions for asthma

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  4,750

  5,551

  6,422

  6,085

  6,375

  5,630

  Yorkshire

  6,355

  7,257

  5,585

  6,881

  7,852

  5,875

  Trent

  7,865

  8,167

  8,557

  8,088

  8,358

  7,823

  East Anglian

  2,904

  2,817

  3,019

  2,560

  3,393

  3,884

  North West Thames

  8,560

  6,960

  7,732

  7,975

  6,776

  6,168

  North East Thames

  8,437

  7,603

  7,676

  7,468

  7,357

  6,316

  South East Thames

  7,533

  7,343

  8,292

  7,208

  7,100

  6,739

  South West Thames

  4,349

  4,416

  3,630

  4,872

  5,651

  5,064

  Wessex

  4,199

  3,955

  4,776

  4,225

  4,739

  4,344

  Oxford

  5,445

  3,856

  4,302

  4,178

  4,502

  5,210

  South Western

  5,345

  4,542

  5,224

  4,898

  5,162

  4,653

  West Midlands

  9,084

  10,087

  10,412

  10,581

  11,396

  9,956

  Mersey

  4,950

  4,697

  5,608

  5,695

  6,408

  5,038

  North Western

  9,895

  9,618

  10,850

  10,186

  11,089

  10,165

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently being treated for asthma(a) in each county and (b) in total; and if he will make a statement. [14886]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Orthodontists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthodontists per 100,000 population there are in each country of the European Union. [14692]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no figures available on the numbers of orthodontists as there is no accepted European Union definition of an orthodontist.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the working of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [14901]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government intend to bring the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 into force on 1 April 1997. The implementation of the Act will be monitored as part of the Department's general monitoring of community care.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the coding system used to store clinical information, known as the Read codes, from(a) NHS consultants and (b) the National Audit Office. [14768]

  Mr. Horam
  The Read codes are maintained and developed by the national health service centre for coding and classification (NHS CCC) which is part of the information management group of the NHS executive. The NHS CCC is a regular contact with approximately 700 NHS consultants through its various working groups and advisory panels.

  Hospital consultants are represented by the joint consultants committee, the British Medical Association and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and their faculties in the United Kingdom.
  158
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received no recent communication from the JCC on the subject of the Read codes. The only previous communication was on 15 June 1994 in which the JCC was
  "pleased to support the continued development and use of coded Read terms as the preferred clinical dictionary to underpin all clinical systems and electronic communications in NHS".

  Copies of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  The National Audit Office is currently conducting an investigation concerning the Read codes. Its investigation is not yet complete and its report is awaited.

  Policy Initiatives (Funding)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which policy initiative he has devoted most funding in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on progress with each such initiatives. [15083]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on policies and expenditure is not available in the form requested. Details of expenditure across the full range of the Department of Health's policies are published annually in its departmental report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Patients (Visits)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) carried out and (b) commissioned into (i) the impact of visits by friends and relatives on the length of time taken by hospitals patients to recover and (ii) the relationship between distance from home to hospital and the number of visits by friends and relatives. [15097]

  Mr. Horam
  No such research has been commissioned or carried out by the Department of Health.

  Osteoporosis
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are being taken to encourage GPs and health authorities to make greater use of bone density measurements in those cases where an individual is identified as being at high risk of developing osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement; [15004]
  159
  (2) what guidance he (a) has issued and (b) plans to issue to health authorities to improve the co-ordination and delivery of services for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement. [15006]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health published a report of the advisory group on osteoporosis in January 1995, and circulated it widely to the national health service. It is for local health authorities to decide what priority to give to making bone density measurement available to those who need it, and how best to co-ordinate services to meet local needs. The White Paper "The National Health Service—a Service with Ambitions", sets out a framework for the continued development of better co-ordinated and integrated services. We have no plans to issue specific guidance on osteoporosis services. Copies of the report of the advisory group on osteoporosis and of the White Paper are available in the Library.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which the lifestyle measures contained in the "The Health of the Nation" to reduce the risk of coronary disease and cancer are applicable to the prevention of osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement. [15005]

  Mr. Horam
  The "Health of the Nation" strategy identified five key areas in which substantial improvements in health can be achieved, and set objectives and targets in each. Implementation of the strategy includes promoting certain lifestyle measures which can help individuals improve their own health. These measures include taking regular physical activity, eating healthily, sensible alcohol consumption and giving up smoking, all of which have a beneficial effect on bone health, and can help prevent osteoporosis.

  Dental Access Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the take-up by(a) dentists and (b) health authorities of the dental access fund; and if he will make a statement. [15070]

  Mr. Malone
  Seventy health authorities applied for grants from the dental access fund, and 22 received awards.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of North Yorkshire social services department's projected budgetary reduction on its ability to meet its statutory duties to disabled people; what monitoring he will be conducting in this respect; and if he will make a statement. [14076]

  Mr. Burns
  The total resources provided for social services in North Yorkshire will increase by a further 6 per cent. next year to £73 million, 48 per cent. more in real terms than in 1990–91. It is for local authorities to manage and to decide on the allocation of these substantial resources in accordance with local circumstances and their own priorities.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local social services authorities are planning to withdraw services from disabled people in 160
  consequence of reductions in their budgets for 1997–98; what monitoring he is conducting of the effect of budgetary cuts on the ability of authorities to meet their statutory duties to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [14079]

  Mr. Burns
  The total resources provided for social services in England will increase by a further 4 per cent. next year to £7.7 billion—73 per cent. more in real terms than in 1990–91. It is for local authorities to manage and to decide on the allocation of these substantial resources in accordance with local circumstances and their own priorities.

  The Department receives budget figures for individual local authorities by broad client category, and these are published in "Key Indicators of Local Authority Social Services", copies of which are available in the Library. The Department does not, however, obtain comparable statistics on planned activity levels, so is not in a position to analyse prospectively whether it is proposed to reduce services.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss the effects of planned budgetary reductions on the ability of local social services authorities to meet their statutory duties to disabled people. [14080]

  Mr. Burns
  We have no immediate plans to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services, though we do meet regularly to discuss a range of issues. We last met it informally, on 4 February.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of Kent social services department's projected budgetary reduction on its ability to meet its statutory duties to disabled people; what monitoring he will be conducting in this respect; and if he will make a statement. [14081]

  Mr. Burns
  The total resources provided for social services in Kent will increase by a further 5 per cent. next year to £218 million—84 per cent. more in real terms than in 1990–91. It is for local authorities to manage and to decide on the allocation of these substantial resources in accordance with local circumstances and their own priorities.

  Care Plans
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directions he has(a) issued and (b) proposes to issue to local authorities on the conduct of assessments and preparation of care plans arising from the judgment in the case of R v. London borough of Islington ex parte Rixon; what monitoring his Department has carried out of existing local practice; if all local authorities now act in accordance with the judgment; and if he will make a statement. [14665]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department has issued both policy and practice guidance on assessment and care plans to local authorities, and we do not see any need for additional guidance, or directions, arising from this judgment. We expect local authorities to take account of this guidance, and, of course, to comply with the law. Assessment and
  161
  care planning are monitored as part of our general monitoring of community care, on which there have been a number of inspections and studies since 1993.

  Residential Care (Coventry)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet representatives of private residential home proprietors in the Coventry area. [15358]

  Mr. Burns
  A meeting with representatives of private residential home proprietors from the Coventry area will be considered if they write setting out their concerns.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will examine the procedures under which the proprietors of residential homes in Coventry receive their allocation of clients. [15359]

  Mr. Burns
  We have issued a direction to local authorities which requires them to place residents in a care home of the resident's choice subject to certain criteria—for example, cost, and suitability—being met.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct an investigation into the causes of bed blocking in Coventry health authority hospitals by elderly patients assessed as requiring residential or nursing home care. [15360]

  Mr. Burns
  The national health service executive routinely monitors information on the reasons for delayed hospital discharges. In addition, a joint review of personal social services within the Coventry area will be undertaken by the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission within the next year.

  We are aware that there have been some delays in discharging patients within Coventry health authority over recent weeks and that there are a number of patients in Walsgrave hospital awaiting residential and nursing home placements. It is expected that these placements will take place soon.

  Coventry health authority, together with the Walsgrave Hospitals NHS trust and Coventry social services have been working to resolve these problems. They have, for example, put together a pilot scheme, which commenced on 5 February to provide a "halfway house" for some patients who are fit for discharge.

  My hon. Friend may wish to contact Ms Caroline Andrew, chairman of Coventry health authority, for further details.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a survey of the weekly costs of residential care provision in(a) the non-profit and (b) the for-profit sectors in Coventry. [15361]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on the weekly costs of residential care in local authority and independent staffed homes for older people for 1994–95 can be found in table U1 of "Key Indicators of local authority social services 1996", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a survey into the number of beds available in residential homes and nursing homes in(a) the for-profit and (b) non-profit sectors in Coventry. [15362]
  162
  Mr. Burns
  The latest information is published in "Residential Accommodation Statistics 1996", which is summarised in the table.

  Residential and nursing beds in Coventry, at 31 March 1996

  Registered beds

  Local authority homes

  490

  Residential homes

  Voluntary sector

  160

  Private sector

  1,280

  Nursing homes1

  570

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical returns RAC5, K036.

  Note:

  1 The nursing home data collected by the Department of Health do not distinguish between the private and voluntary sectors. Data held on the Laing and Buisson Care Homes Information database however suggests that approximately half of the registered beds are in the voluntary sector and half in the private sector.

  GP Fundholder Budgets (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms (i) the final cash limit for general practice fundholder budgets in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes in 1992–93, (ii) the initial cash limit for such budgets in 1996–97 and (iii) the sums of public money planned to be available for GP fundholder budgets in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes and for Buckinghamshire health authority in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [14294]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 4 February 1997]: Information about planned general practice fundholder budgets in Buckinghamshire for 1997–98 is not available. Figures for 1992–93 and 1996–97 are in the table. The figures are not comparable because, for example, of the expansion of services in the fundholding scheme and the incorporation of management allowances within the fund. For these reasons, a real terms comparison is not meaningful.

  GP fundholder budgets in Buckinghamshire (cash)

  Year

  GP fundholder budgets (£ million)

  Number of GP fundholders

  1992–93

  117.0

  99

  1996–97

  87.9

  265

  1 Excludes staff element of budget, for which 1992–93 information is not available.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of non-fatal food poisoning there were in each year since 1990; and what was the source by category of the infections. [14671]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 7 February 19971: Information on food poisoning does not distinguish between fatal and non-fatal cases. Details of the total number of cases of food poisoning notified under the Public Health (Infectious Disease) Regulations 1988 to the Office for National Statistics up to 1994 are published in "Series MB2 Communicable Disease Statistics" and

  163
  copies are available in the Library. There were 82,041 cases notified in 1995, the latest provision figure for 1996 is 83,664.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 24 January, Official Report, column 767 on the information on deaths which was derived from deaths registrations and is therefore not comparable with this information. The two sets of information come from different sources and are collected on a different basis. It is not possible to subtract the number of deaths from the number of cases to arrive at a figure for non-fatal cases.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 767, if he will list the source of each fatal food poisoning outbreak for each year since 1990. [14704]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer Friday 7 February 1997]: Information on source of infection for general outbreaks is available from 1992—the earliest date information is available—onwards and is given in the table:

  General outbreaks of foodborne infectious intestinal disease where associated deaths have been reported

  England and Wales 1992-11996

  Year

  Organism

  Food

  Number of Deaths

  1992

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  poached eggs

  1

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  trifle, vanilla slices

  1

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  chicken nuggets, cheese on toast

  1

  Salmonella typhimurium DT I04

  cooked ham

  2

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  not known

  3

  1993

  Clostridium perfringens

  roast turkey

  1

  Clostridium perfringens

  carrots, fish

  1

  Salmonella typhimurium DT104c

  cooked chicken, ham sandwiches

  1

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  chicken chow mein

  1

  1995

  Salmonella enteritidis PT5A

  sausage rolls, corned beef sandwiches

  2

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  boiled eggs

  1

  Escherichia coli 0157

  pre-cooked meats

  2

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  strawberry mousse

  2

  Clostridium perfringens

  roast lamb

  2

  1996

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  raw shell eggs

  1

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  soft boiled eggs

  2

  Salmonella indiana

  chicken breast pieces

  10

  Escherichia coli 0157

  pork products

  1

  Salmonella enteritidis PT4

  mayonnaise made with raw shell eggs

  1

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Notes:

  1 Provisional data.

  General outbreak: an outbreak affecting members of more than I private residence or residents of an institution.

  Most food poisoning deaths are isolated incidents and do not occur as part of a general outbreak.
  164

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's proposals in respect of requirements relating to oestrogen levels in drinking water. [14577]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of the Environment has funded research into substances possessing oestrogenic activity in sewage effluents and their significance in water sources and drinking water supply reservoirs. This research, which has been published, showed that although oestrogenic activity could be detected in fish in sewage effluent this activity declined rapidly in water courses and could not be detected in fish kept in water abstracted for treatment as drinking water.

  A recent study funded by the Environment Agency indicated that oestrogens derived from man may be responsible for the oestrogenic activity of sewage effluent. To provide further reassurance, the Department is now funding developing of highly sensitive methods for analysis of these human derived oestrogens in water sources and drinking water. The methods developed will be used to carry out further investigations of oestrogen concentrations and to quantify removal in water treatment processes.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat (Briefings)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by date and subject the briefings and presentations given by the Northern Ireland civil service to the Anglo-Irish secretariat in 1996. [11700]

  Mr. Ancram
  Briefing and presentations which were given to the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat by representatives of the Northern Ireland Office and/or Northern Ireland Departments in 1996 are as follows:

  1996

  Briefings and presentations

  30 January

  Cultural matters

  6 February

  Economic and social matters

  22 February

  Relations between the security forces and the community

  21 March

  Relations between the security forces and the community

  26 March

  Health services

  22 April

  Public order

  30 April

  Relations between the police and the community

  2 May

  Composition of public bodies

  8 May

  Economic and social matters

  15 May

  Cultural matters

  16 May

  Economic and social matters

  26 June

  Public order

  24 July

  Public order

  31 July

  Economic and social matters

  7 August

  Public order

  29 August

  Public order

  4 September

  Public order

  3 October

  Housing

  17 October

  Economic, social and cultural matters

  18 October

  Political mattes

  14 November

  Relations between the security forces and the community

  165

  1996

  Briefings and presentations

  14 November

  Composition of public bodies

  28 November

  Prisons policy

  5 December

  Relations between the security forces and the community

  10 December

  Public expenditure

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment his Department has made of the reasons behind the recent outbreaks of Newcastle disease; and if he will make a statement. [13608]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 31 January 1997]: An outbreak of Newcastle disease was confirmed on 7 February 1997 in a broiler production unit near Lurgan, Co. Armagh.

  Epidemiological investigation is currently under way in an attempt to establish the source of the outbreak.

  The last outbreak of Newcastle disease in Northern Ireland occurred in August 1996, involved one flock and was most likely due to wild birds gaining access to the poultry house.

  Early Release (Spiritual Conversion)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the case of how many life sentence prisoners who have received early release in the past 10 years the decisions were influenced in part by the prisoner's spiritual conversion. [14347]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This specific information is not centrally held and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I should point out that the fact that a prisoner had undergone a spiritual conversion would not in itself warrant early release.

  Irish Medium Teaching Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Irish medium postgraduate certificate of education courses and stage one of the Irish medium B.Ed. course have been accredited by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland and validated by the Queen's university of Belfast. [14483]

  Mr. Ancram
  The courses have been validated by the Queen's university of Belfast. They do not require accreditation by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the expenditure to date on the development of the new Irish language medium B.Ed. and postgraduate certificate of education courses at St. Mary's college, Belfast; and if he will make a statement. [14412]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of £44,586. The courses are being developed to meet the needs of Irish medium schools.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the six stage one modules of the new Irish medium B.Ed. courses at St. Mary's college,166
  Belfast, have been specially designed for Irish medium teaching; and what percentage of each module is taught through the medium of Irish. [14411]

  Mr. Ancram
  All six. The percentages are:Two main subject modules: 100 per cent.
  Two curriculum studies modules: 0 to 100 per cent. depending on the subject
  Two education studies modules: 5 per cent.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is the director responsible for developing Irish language medium B.Ed. and postgraduate certificate of education courses at St. Mary's college, Belfast; and what advisory and consultative structures are in place involving Irish medium schools and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in the development of these courses. [14423]

  Mr. Ancram
  The college principal. The college has responsibility for developing both courses in consultation with Irish medium schools, other interest groups and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the new Irish-medium postgraduate certificate of education courses at St. Mary's college, Belfast, have been specially designed for Irish medium teaching; and what percentage of the whole course is taught through the medium of Irish. [14413]

  Mr. Ancram
  The answer is all, and approximately 20 per cent.

  Job Creation (Belfast, West)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been created in the constituency of Belfast, West,(a) since 10 April 1992 and (b) between 10 June 1983 and 10 April 1992. [14358]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on total jobs created is not available, but net job creation is demonstrated by the change in the number of employees in employment. Employment statistics at parliamentary constituency are available only from the Northern Ireland census of employment, which is currently conducted in September every second year. Information for the dates closest to those requested is as follows:

  Employees in employment1, 2 in Belfast West parliamentary constituency area

  Number

  Net change in total employees

  (a)

  1991

  51,567

  +3,773 (+7.3 per cent.)

  1995

  55,340

  +3,773 (+7.3 per cent.)

  (b)

  1984

  46,784

  +4,783 (+10.2 per cent.)

  1991

  51,567

  +4,783 (+10.2 per cent.)

  1 Figures exclude agriculture and self-employed.

  2 All figures are at September of each year.

  Inward Investment (Belfast, West)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what incentives for attracting inward investment towards the consistency of Belfast, West his
  167
  Department has (a) considered and (b) approved (i) since 10 April 1992 and (ii) between 10 June 1983 and 10 April 1992. [14360]

  Mr. Ancram
  Between 10 April 1992 and 31 December 1996 the Industrial Development Board constructed four factories and acquired or was in the process of acquiring 36.5 acres of land at a total cost of £6.4 million in the Belfast, West constituency. During this period IDB offered financial assistance totalling some £54 million towards total investment of almost £150 million for 15 inward investment projects promising 1,642 new jobs and safeguarding 1,368 more.

  Between January 1983 and April 1992 three factories were built and 11.5 acres acquired in the constituency at a total cost of £2.6 million. Between 1986–87—the earliest year for which equivalent figures are available—and April 1992 IDB offered support totalling £29 million against investment of almost £104 million by 13 inward investment projects, promoting 202 new jobs and safeguarding 1,826 more.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits by overseas investors and trade delegations his Department records as having taken place in the Belfast, West constituency(a) since 10 April 1992 and (b) between 10 June 1993 and 10 April 1992. [14362]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of visits by overseas investors—interpreted to mean potential investors—is not available for the period 10 June 1983 to 31 March 1993 and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Between 1 April 1993 and 31 December 1996 the Industrial Development Board recorded 127 visits by potential investors to the Belfast, West constituency.

  Since 10 April 1992 there have been five trade delegation visits to the Belfast, West constituency. Between 10 June 1983 and 10 April 1992 there was one such visit.

  Departmental Decisions (Judicial Review)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many decisions by his Department were challenged through judicial review in Session 1995–96; and in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [14373]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not readily available in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments as no central record is kept of applications for judicial reviews.

  Inner-city Action (Belfast, West)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of funding from Government inner-city action programmes was released to community and voluntary organisations in the Belfast, West constituency between 10 June 1983 and 10 April 1992. [14357]
  168
  Sir John Wheeler
  Information about expenditure on inner-city action programmes was not available on a ward by ward basis before 31 March 1994. However, details of projects funded under the making Belfast work initiative since its inception in 1988 to the 31 March 1992 were published in the making Belfast work strategy proposals published in April 1994. A copy of this document is in the Library.

  Expenditure by Belfast action teams covering the Belfast, West constituency amounted to £3.4 million up to 31 March 1992.

  Between 1983 and 1986 the Northern Ireland Office and Department of Health and Social Services provided £286,000 towards a diversionary scheme which targeted hard core joyriders in west Belfast.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding from the Belfast action teams and making Belfast work programmes has been released to community and voluntary organisations in the Belfast, West constituency since 10 April 1992. [14361]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information about making Belfast work and Belfast action team expenditure on a ward basis was not available before April 1994, although details of the individual projects which received funding between April 1992 and 31 March 1994 is available. However, it is not possible to aggregate this information into constituency areas because projects often covered more than one ward.

  From 1 April 1994 approximately £35 million has been allocated by making Belfast work and Belfast action team to projects within the constituency of Belfast, West.

  Investment (Belfast, West)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of(a) public and (b) private investment has been secured for the constituency of Belfast, West (i) since 10 April 1992 and (ii) between 10 June 1983 and 10 April 1992. [14359]

  Mr. Ancram
  From the information available, it is estimated that since financial year 1992–93 direct departmental public investment commitments in the Belfast, West constituency are £406 million, and related private sector investment is £162 million.

  Corresponding figures for the period 1983–84 to 1991–92 are not entirely complete as expenditure on a number of Government programmes is not available for the entire period. Available figures indicate direct departmental public investment commitments were £172 million and related private sector investment was £112 million.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14469]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland civil service has sought to integrate equal opportunities advice and good practice into all its personnel arrangements both in terms of day to day personnel and in strategic, policy terms. It is not, therefore, possible to isolate either the
  169
  costs or numbers of staff employed in Departments to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities policies.

  Muckamore Abbey Hospital
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) the future of Muckamore Abbey hospital and (b) health care provision for patients currently served by the hospital; and what consultations he has initiated with groups representing patient interests on this subject. [14705]

  Mr. Ancram
  The future of Muckamore Abbey hospital is a matter primarily for the Eastern health and social services board, the principal purchaser of its services. The board has consulted widely on this issue holding 19 public meetings. It also met a deputation from the parents and friends of Muckamore Abbey hospital. The board has indicated that the hospital is well placed to continue to provide in-patient specialist treatment services for people with a learning disability and is discussing with the North and West Belfast Trust, which manages the hospital, how this might best be achieved.

  Meanwhile, the process is continuing of resettling to the community those patients who no longer have a requirement for in-patient treatment and care. The resettlement of individual patients from the hospital is carefully planned and implemented in order to ensure that their continuing health needs are assessed and met.

  EU Agriculture Funding
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year to date from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund guidance section; what proportion of these receipts were paid to the(a) private and (b) public sector; and what proportion of these receipts (i) represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy and (ii) was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland in each year for which figures are available. [10831]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Receipts earned by the private sector and by non-central Government public sector bodies are paid in full to the claimant. These receipts are cash additions to the claimants. Receipts earned by central Government contribute to the total of public expenditure in Northern Ireland and allow that total to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Northern Ireland contributes a share of the United Kingdom's payments to the European Community, but these are not hypothecated to specific funds. It is not possible therefore to identify the extent to which receipts from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund represent net cash additions to the Northern Ireland economy.

  All EAGGF receipts are subject to EC audit arrangements and normal Government accounting requirements.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14472]

  Mr. Burt
  There are currently 15 staff employed exclusively to advise on the application of equal opportunities at an annual cost of approximately £341,000. In addition, there are a number of staff who provide such advice as part of their wider duties, for example line mangers, personnel officers, local equal opportunity officers and harassment advisers. Information on the number of such people is not held centrally.

  Benefits Agency
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State of Social Security what is the breakdown by age of callers to Benefits Agency offices. [14580]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Housing Benefit (Domestic Violence)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the contents of the further representations he has received from Welsh Women's Aid in relation to the guidelines to local authorities with respect to housing benefit entitlement for women leaving home because of the threat of domestic violence; and if he will make a statement. [13844]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No further representations have been received from Welsh Women's Aid since its letter of 24 October 1996 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, departmental officials have exchanged correspondence with Welsh Women's Aid. I am advised that the proposed revised guidance accurately reflects current regulations.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been refused housing benefit and council tax benefit following the introduction of the habitual residence test for the 1995–96 financial year. [15218]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available. However, the figures are currently being processed and will be published in the "Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Summary Statistics—Update Number 2" in March 1997.

  A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the costs to local authorities of administering the habitual residence test in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit claims. [15219]

  Mr. Evans
  The estimated cost to local authorities of administering the habitual residence test in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit claims for 1995–96 is £0.7 million.

  Disabled People (Income Support)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people were receiving income support in May 1992; and what change there has been in the number in each subsequent year. [14077]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested as there is no specific information available on the number of people with disabilities who receive income support.

  However, information on the number of people who receive the disability or higher pensioner premium, other than those who qualify because they are aged 80 or over, as part of their income support, is in the table.

  Date

  Income support claimants in receipt of the disability premium

  Income support claimants aged 60–79 in receipt of the higher pensioner premium

  Total

  May 1992

  425,000

  190,000

  614,000

  May 1993

  527,000

  249,000

  776,000

  May 1994

  618,000

  296,000

  914,000

  May 1995

  739,000

  342,000

  1,081,000

  February 1996

  769,000

  374,000

  1,143,000

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand and totals may not sum.

  2. Sample size is 5 per cent.

  3. The disability premium is awarded to those people aged under 60 who receive disability living allowance, attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, or long-term incapacity benefit. The premium is also paid to people who have been incapable of work for at least 364 days.

  4. The higher pensioner premium is awarded to those people aged between 60 and 79 who receive disability living allowance, attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, or long-term incapacity benefit. The premium is also paid to people who were in receipt of the disability premium within eight weeks of their 60th birthday, and have been in receipt of income support continuously since then.

  All Work Test
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the all work test for incapacity benefit; what communication he has had with doctors about complaints from disabled people concerning the test; what plans he has for changes to the test; and if he will make a statement. [14078]

  Mr. Burt
  A number of representations from hon. Members and the public about matters relating to the all work test for incapacity benefit have been received. In addition departmental officials maintain regular contact with professional bodies representing general practitioners.

  The number of complaints from people claiming incapacity benefit who are required to undergo a medical examination represents less than 1 per cent. of claimants examined. The Benefits Agency medical services have well-publicised procedures in place to investigate complaints speedily and to give the complainant a full response.

  We are continuing to monitor the operation of the test to ensure that it is meeting its objective of targeting the benefit on those medically incapable of work. We have
  172
  recently introduced some minor amendments to the regulations which will improve its application and assist consistency in decision making.

  Benefits in Kind
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each of the last seven years, the extensions of the application of employers' national insurance contributions to benefits in kind designed to eliminate the avoidance of national insurance contributions on bonuses and other one-off benefits in kind; if he will give his estimate of the savings accruing from each measure; and if he will make a statement. [13332]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: The measures introduced in December 1996 to prevent national insurance contribution—NIC—avoidance by paying employees in their own company's shares and share options were announced in my written answer of 4 December, Official Report, column 715–16, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).

  The following measures to combat NIC avoidance were introduced prior to December 1996.

  In 1991 payments by way of a wide range of financial instruments such as shares, other than own company shares, gilts and insurance policies became subject to NICs.

  In 1993 payments by way of commodities capable of being sold on a recognised investment exchange or the London bullion market such as precious metals and gold bullion and vouchers for these commodities became subject to NICs.

  In 1994 payments by way of alcoholic liquors on which no UK duty had been paid, gemstones and any vouchers for these assets became subject to NICs.

  In 1995 payment by way of assets for which trading arrangements exist, vouchers for those assets and vouchers which are themselves the subject of trading arrangements became subject to NICs.

  Employers are not required to identify bonuses or other one-off payments. The behavioural effects of measures against NICs avoidance, particularly those aimed at a wide range of asset-based avoidance, make precise long-term estimates of savings unreliable.

  The Inland Revenue estimates, in respect of the changes made in December 1996 specifically related to own-company shares, that the annual savings would amount to about £30 million.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions in each of the last five years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers in his Department. [14552]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: There have been no instances of the Department's computer systems being illegally accessed by computer hackers.
  173
  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of computer hacking, fraud and theft, including theft of computer chips his Department has recorded in the last five years. [14553]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The information is in the table. There have been no recorded cases of computer hacking into the Department's systems.

  Calendar year

  Fraud

  Theft

  Thefts involving chips

  1996

  15

  222

  65

  1995

  34

  247

  65

  1994

  32

  143

  1

  1993

  41

  79

  2

  1992

  17

  33

  0

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the targets used by the Benefits Agency medical services in respect of(a) medical advice, (b) scrutiny, (c) assessment, (d) examination and (e) complaints for each of the disability benefits. [14404]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services 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. Alan Howarth, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the targets used by the Benefits Agency Medical Service in respect of (a) medical advice, (b) scrutiny, (c) assessment, (d) examination and (e) complaints for each of the disability benefits.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the enclosed tables. All targets are expressed in working days.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Incapacity benefit targets

  Target

  Medical advice

  95 per cent. cleared in 5 days

  Scrutiny

  30 per cent. cleared in 10 days

  85 per cent cleared in 50 days Assessment

  Assessment

  30 per cent. cleared in 10 days

  85 per cent cleared in 50 days

  Examinations

  30 per cent cleared in 10 days

  85 per cent. cleared in 50 days

  Complaints

  100 per cent. acknowledged in 2 days

  100 per cent. to receive full or interim response in 10 days

  80 per cent. cleared in 20 days

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit targets

  Target

  Medical advice

  60 per cent. cleared in 33 days

  90 per cent. cleared in 70 days

  Scrutiny

  60 per cent. cleared in 33 days

  90 per cent. cleared in 70 days

  Assessment

  60 per cent. cleared in 33 days

  90 per cent. cleared in 70 days

  174

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit targets

  Target

  Examinations

  60 per cent. cleared in 33 days

  90 per cent. cleared in 70 days

  Complaints

  100 per cent. acknowledged in 2 days

  100 per cent. to receive full or interim response in 10 days

  80 per cent. cleared in 20 days.

  Severe disablement allowance targets

  Target

  Medical advice

  Not applicable

  Scrutiny

  Not applicable

  Assessment

  60 per cent. cleared in 40 days

  85 per cent. cleared in 100 days

  Examinations

  60 per cent. cleared in 40 days

  85 per cent. cleared in 100 days

  Complaints

  100 per cent. acknowledged in 2 days

  100 per cent. to receive full or interim response in 10 days

  80 per cent. cleared in 20 days

  Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance Targets
  Each Medical Services Centre has a Service Level Agreement with the local Disability Benefit Centre. Targets are negotiated and agreed to take account of local circumstances.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the main elements in the running costs of the Benefits Agency medical services in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [14405]

  (2) if he will list the component parts of the Benefits Agency medical services and medical evidence budgets and the proportions of the local social security budget they represent; [14406]

  (3) what has been the level of spending in the current year to date on the (a) Benefits Agency medical services and (b) medical evidence budgets relative to the planned provision. [14407]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services 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. Alan Howarth, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the main elements in the running costs of the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; if he will list the component parts of the BAMS and Medical Evidence budgets and the proportions of the local social security budget they represent; and what has been the level of spending in the current year to date on the (a) BAMS and (b) Medical Evidence budgets relative to the planned provision.
  The main elements in the running costs of the BAMS for each year are staffing and medical evidence.
  The BAMS budget consists of Salaries and Non-staff Costs. The Medical Evidence Budget consists of Doctors Fees and expenses, Medical Report Fees, Customer Expenses, and Medical Examination Incidentals.
  For 1996–97, the BAMS budget is 4.8% of the budget allocated to the Area Directorates, and the Medical evidence budget is 4.0%.
  175
  The actual and planned expenditure for April to December 1996 is shown in the table below:-

  Actual expenditure £

  Planned expenditure £

  BAMS

  44,111,000

  43,812,000

  Medical evidence

  39,064,275

  35,594,035

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Payment Security Cards
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he received from(a) Post Office Counters and (b) trades unions representing Post Office and Benefits Agency staff concerning the introduction of the benefit payment security cards; and if he will place copies of such representations in the Library; [14795]

  (2) for what reasons he introduced the payment security card for certain categories of benefit claimants; in what parts of the United Kingdom the cards were issued; what was the cost of introducing the cards; what assessment he has made of the extent to which the cards assisted in reducing benefit fraud; for what reasons payment security cards are no longer acceptable as valid proof of identity when cashing benefit cheques; and if he will make a statement. (14794]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 11 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the Payment Security Card.
  In response to Question 14794, the Payment Security Card was introduced by the Employment Service for unemployed clients who lived in areas which experienced significant girocheque
  176
  losses. It was introduced as a security precaution to reduce the amount of girocheque fraud and the number of girocheques reported as not received. The card was originally piloted in the West Midlands region in September 1993 and a decision was made to extend its use in July 1995. The cards were issued in 272 Jobcentres located throughout the country. Please see Annex I for a list of those Jobcentres. The cost of introducing the card was £225,000 including the manufacture and distribution of the cards to Jobcentres and associated publicity material for Jobcentres and Post Offices.
  The card was initially successful. An evaluation showed that the number of girocheques reported as not received fell by around 45% and the extent of girocheque fraud fell by 70%. However, the effects of the card diminished over time and some clients experienced difficulties when they lost their cards. The card was in any event intended as a short term measure prior to the planned introduction of the Benefits Agency's Payment Card.
  Responsibility for benefit payments to unemployed people transferred to the Benefits Agency in October 1996 with the introduction of Jobseeker's Allowance. For a number of operational and technical reasons, the Payment Security Card could not be included in the Jobseeker's Allowance process. The Benefits Agency's new Payment Card is currently being rolled out to benefit recipients and will eventually include clients receiving Jobseeker's Allowance. This will become the secure means of payment which replaces girocheques altogether. Therefore, no new clients have been issued with a Payment Security Card since the introduction of Jobseeker's Allowance in October 1996. Clients who still held a Payment Security Card were notified in writing during January 1997 that the card would not be accepted by the Post Office from 3 February 1997.
  The notification also gave details of the other types of identity which are acceptable to the Post Office when cashing girocheques. Posters have also been displayed in Jobcentres and Post Offices.
  In response to Question 14795 representations were received from Trade Unions representing Employment Service staff in November 1993. They asked for details of the terms of reference and timings of the pilot of the Payment Security Card in the West Midlands region. The Trade Union Side were kept informed when it was decided to extend the use of the card in July 1995. The introduction of the Payment Security Card was negotiated with Post Office Counters Ltd. via the Employment Service's contractual partner, Girobank plc. There were no representations to Employment Service from Trade Unions representing Post Office staff. I have made arrangements for copies of the representations made by the Trade Unions representing Employment Service staff to be made available in the House of Commons library
  I hope this is helpful.

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

Asylum Seekers: Detention Conditions
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve the present facilities for asylum seekers held in immigration detention centres and Her Majesty's prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, asylum seekers and other Immigration Act detainees who are held in immigration detention centres and in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales are treated well and have the same special rights and privileges as remand prisoners. Only about 1 per cent. of those whose asylum cases are outstanding are detained at any one time.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply as far as it goes. Does she accept that many people, including most recently the chairman of the British Medical Association, cannot understand why so many asylum seekers are detained, without any hearing, in prisons and detention centres after all they have gone through in their own countries, and why there is no form of independent review of their cases and an overhaul of the bail system?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, about 80 per cent. of those who are detained will have made an asylum claim at some stage. We understand that between 75 and 80 per cent. of those will have had their applications rejected. A significant number will also have had their appeals rejected and will be mounting last-ditch challenges to the system or awaiting documentation from other countries. There are many reasons for detention and the delays in detention, but I believe that the point made by the BMA is rather overstated.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at present there is a vast amount of oppression in many countries throughout the world, that the unfortunate people affected believe that this is the easiest country to get into and that if we absorb all of them we shall increase our social problems to an unreasonable degree?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. We honour all of our obligations, both national and international. Just 1 per cent. of outstanding applications is subject to detention. Every effort is made to provide facilities for asylum seekers. All of them have access to physical, education and library facilities, educational classes, recreational
114
activities and medical services that are in line with those available to any citizen in the land. They have a more relaxed regime. They have the use of shops and telephones; they can wear their own clothes; they have generous visiting arrangements and regular meals, and dietary and religious requirements are met. I believe that we do our duty by these people.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in 1994 in response to the European Committee on Torture and Inhumane Treatment Her Majesty's Government said that they would take every possible step to reduce the number of asylum seekers in detention? Further, does she agree that since that time the number has increased and the length of detention has increased despite the fact that the number of asylum seekers has declined? Will the Minister give further consideration to the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that an independent review be made of such cases, in particular for those who are detained for six months or more?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong in saying that the numbers have declined. The noble Baroness quoted the figure for 1994. In that year the number of applicants was 32,800. In 1995 the figure was 43,965. As a proportion, the figures are not as the noble Baroness has pointed out. A mere 10 years ago in 1987 the number of applications was only 4,256. That demonstrates the enormous escalation in the number of asylum applications. Referring to the earlier point made by my noble friend, the reason may be that this country is more accommodating to asylum seekers than many other countries.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that hunger strikers have access to appropriate medical facilities? That said, does she agree that no government should ever be held to ransom?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, indeed they do have access to medical facilities. An enormous amount of effort is made on two counts: first, to persuade hunger strikers to discontinue their hunger strikes; and, secondly, to ensure that all of their medical needs are met. That involves medical attention being given inside the prison, the hospital wing and in external hospitals. I absolutely agree with the noble Viscount: no government should be held to ransom in this way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, in view of the suggestion of the noble Earl, there cannot be a review system until a decision has been made and that once a decision has been made there is a first-rate independent review system?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I confirm that. The delay is not all one way. The delay is not always the fault of the Government's administration. Delay may be caused by people simply not turning up for appeal hearings or failing to provide evidence to appeal hearings. Sometimes there is delay on the part of

115
receiving countries who do not provide travel documents to their citizens so that they can return to their countries.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the way in which she has answered questions put by noble Lords on the other side of the House this afternoon suggests that she looks to the imprisonment of asylum seekers who are innocent of any criminal charge as a way of deterring others from seeking safety in this country? Is she not saying that detention and imprisonment work?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have made the point repeatedly that detention is a last resort. That is borne out by the figures: only about 1 per cent. of outstanding asylum cases are detained. They are not all wholly innocent; many of them are guilty of criminal offences. One of the reasons for detention is that they are deemed not to be reliable in conforming to and being compliant with the terms and conditions of their release into the community. It is for that reason that they are detained. During the many Questions on this subject that I have answered, and during the passage of the Bill on this subject, I have noted that noble Lords opposite would have a much more generous policy for such people not to be detained and to be at large in the community. I believe that that would add considerably to the risk in the community.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 754 persons were detained at the end of 1996, and that that represents 2.79 per cent. of the 27,000 persons who applied for political asylum during 1996, and not 1 per cent. as she keeps reiterating? Does she further agree that 25 per cent. of the 754 persons in detention are awaiting an answer to their first application, and therefore should be considered as prime candidates for bail? Of those, 405 applied at the port of entry and are therefore within the terms of the Minister's definition of genuine asylum applicants.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have never said what the noble Lord attributes to me as having said. I have never said that it was 1 per cent. of applications in any one year. If the noble Lord looks back at the correspondence that I have had with him, he will see that it is about 1 per cent. of the outstanding applications. At this moment there are about 70,000 outstanding applications.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is not consistent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I have said is consistent. It is about 1 per cent. of outstanding applications. If the noble Lord is saying that 75 out of 740 are awaiting their first consideration that does not detract from the fact that there must be good reason for detaining them, because there is an independent appellate authority which would consider bail were it applied for. It is not a question of the Government detaining these people. They are detained with full rights to apply for bail.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, why cannot these wretched people be brought before a magistrate, say, within two weeks of the start of detention?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the Government had proposed that in the Bill, the noble Lord would have been the first person to have stood up and objected to it, because those people must be allowed to have their applications considered in the first place, and time to prepare their cases for appeal. I have said that we believe that sometimes there is undue delay in the appeals being prepared on the part of the applicants. We do not want to cut through that by having quick, sharp justice done by a magistrates' court overnight probably merely, at the end of the day, to deny them their rights. We do not agree with that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has obviously described the physical facilities of these people accurately, but does not she recognise that the despair that they feel, which in the most distressing cases has led to hunger strikes, arises from the fact that they have been put in prison by administrative action—by immigration officials—rather than by any judicial process, and that their appeals against detention depend in the first instance upon administrative action?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, where I do agree with the noble Lord is that some of these people are desperate. They are desperate for different reasons, not just because they are detained. They are desperate because the economic conditions in their own country are such that they would prefer to live in this country. We have a system that is generous in awarding exceptional leave to remain in those cases which do not qualify for refugee status under the UN convention. There is independent consideration of bail applications. They are given fair consideration. The noble Lord knows that. We discussed that at length during the course of the Bill. It is not a government decision. It is an independent decision, and, as the noble Lord knows, His Honour Judge Pearl is at the head of that appellate body.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment upon the fact that in answer to a previous question on this subject she referred to people who were accused of having committed crime? Will she tell the House how many of those accused of committing crime have been charged and how many are being kept in detention as a result of accusations that have not been brought to charge?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a number have not merely been charged, they have been convicted and served their sentence. There is one asylum detainee who had committed abuses against children, had served a prison sentence in this country, had been removed from this country, and re-entered illegally. There will be others who have a criminal background. When one is considering the likelihood of someone conforming to the terms and conditions of release into the community then the character of that person is an important consideration to be taken into account.

Pyramid Selling
2.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the latest legislation on controlling pyramid selling will affect schemes already in existence in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, trading schemes covered by existing provisions will be subject to new regulations setting minimum standards of business practice. There is a six-month transitional period. Those schemes newly within the scope of controls also have six months to comply with the regulations, but they must comply immediately with the controls on recruitment set out in the Fair Trading Act.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his Answer, especially as the new provisions are carrying out the intention stated in reply to a Question which I tabled in November 1994.
While consumer protection cannot help the blindly gullible, will the Government act firmly, after the six-month moratorium, in closing down schemes which appear to be plausible and attractive but are bound to lead to most participants losing money? Will they respond favourably to any request for advice from Albania, a country emerging from more than 50 years of isolation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we have not introduced the new regulations to do nothing at the end of the six-month period. In our view, the six-month transitional period is appropriate. Certainly, if after the end of that period we discover that people are acting outwith the terms of the Act or regulations we would intend to take action. Ultimately, that could result in prosecution.
As my noble friend indicated, the luckless people of Albania seem to have suffered appallingly under a wide range of pyramid schemes and thousands have lost their money. I suppose that it will be of little comfort to them to know that such schemes would have been caught by the regulations in this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a little puzzled because such scams are of great age. Fly people preying on the gullible and greedy have been around for a long time. Why is there a delay? Why are not such schemes illegal and why are not the people concerned behind bars? We are talking about the three-card trick in its most extreme form. The police constantly stop people running the three-card trick, although, in my view, not enough of them end up in prison. I am staggered that we are talking about delay and so forth. It is about time that once and for all we made it clear that such people will be caught and dealt with by the law, and I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord's department has not done so.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that some of these so-called
118
money circulation schemes are little more than scams and are probably fraudulent from the outset. If that can he established there is no reason why a prosecution could not or should not be taken immediately. With a number of the schemes the difficulty is that whether you can secure a return on your money depends upon enough people being recruited after you. In those circumstances, if people wish to participate in them, understanding that an element of gamble is involved, it is a matter for them.
We are anxious to ensure that anyone participating in such a scheme understands clearly the range of risks they are undertaking. I understand that traditionally only about 10 to 15 per cent. of those participating in such schemes make a profit or get their money back. Those who are recruited at the beginning can do very well, but up to 85 per cent. may lose out badly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hesitate to pursue the matter but the noble and learned Lord keeps using the word "may". Does he agree that the logical essence of such a scheme is that those who join later must be exploited or ripped off by those who joined first? That is the essence of the fraudulent behaviour. Those who try to argue to the contrary simply fall into the trap of the proponents of the scheme. I do not understand why such a scheme even remotely gets to run and I am looking for an explanation of that. Such a scheme is not a gamble; it is a crooked operation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with respect, it is not necessarily a crooked operation. Curiously, I agree with the noble Lord that at the end of the day it is a matter of remorseless logic that some will lose out in the schemes. If the noble Lord had read the Daily Telegraph of 10th February he might have noticed that Professor Patrick Minford managed to construct an elaborate economic model to establish that that would not be the case. I believe that for once I am closer to the noble Lord in his economics than I am to Professor Minford.
If at the outset people participating in the schemes understand the risk there need not necessarily be something fraudulent in them. People must assess the risk. The regulations are set out to ensure that people participating in such schemes understand clearly the risk that is open to them. The noble Lord's observations probably apply in equal force to many of our fellow citizens who today will doubtless spend some of their money on horse-racing, where the odds of securing a return are probably worse than for the 10 or 15 per cent. who will probably gain under the pyramid schemes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord recommend any good schemes to the House?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. However, I believe that when Professor Minford indicates that it is possible to make money out of them and that there is a reasonable way to approach them the adage of putting his money where his mouth is would be appropriate. I would not put a single penny of my money into the

119
schemes. Those who have recently participated have lost considerable sums. The most recent to secure public attention required an initial fee of some £3,000. Therefore, people did not lose trivial sums.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the seeming proliferation of pyramid schemes on the internet? What plans do the Government have for addressing that problem?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I must be honest with my noble friend and say that I had no idea whatever that such schemes were operated on the internet. However, I hope that I can offer him reassurance. One of the concerns has been that those who promote such schemes from foreign countries will not be caught by the offence provision in the regulations. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that if the internet schemes are promoted from another country but operate in this country those who are operating them will be caught by the offence provisions of the regulations.

Nuclear Weapons
2.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, having regard to the statement of the International Court of Justice that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to humanitarian law, they will ask the court to define the circumstances in which the threat or use of such weapons would not be contrary to humanitarian law.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we shall not be asking the UN General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice for such an opinion. As we made clear, we do not believe that hypothetical questions should be put to the court.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while there is no definition, it is open to any nuclear country to say that its weapons are being used in a virtually non-lethal way and that their plans and threat are not seriously meant? I believe that unless there is some definition any nuclear state can do exactly what it pleases. Is that the aim of the Government? If so, why did they sign the non-proliferation treaty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must admit that I find the noble Lord's question a little difficult to follow. However, bearing in mind all that we have discussed on this issue on previous occasions, I believe that the UK, having already made a number of reductions to the nuclear arsenal on a national basis, has shown good faith and it is absolutely right that we should have signed the non-proliferation treaty. Our deterrent is of a
120
minimum consistent with assessment of our security requirements. Any nation which possesses a nuclear deterrent must have a credible deterrent if it is to deter.
I do not believe that the noble Lord yet accepts what your Lordships in general accept; that NATO has a strategy of war prevention. The strategy includes its nuclear element. That is essential to the process of forging the new relationships on international defence agreements.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me and the House and set the record straight. Is it not a fact that when the International Court of Justice was asked by the World Health Organisation to give an opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons it declined to do so? Is it not further a fact that the comment about this being against humanitarian law was contained in a statement by one judge who gave a dissenting opinion? Is it not misleading, therefore, to suggest that that is the opinion of the International Court of Justice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. When the case was referred to it, the court decided that it did not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law in any circumstances. The legality of any such use would depend on all the circumstances of the case. As I said when answering a previous Question in your Lordships' House, one judge dissented, and it is on his view that a few noble Lords and some others have seized.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, but did not the court make it clear that normally the use of nuclear weapons would be in conflict with international humanitarian law and that the exceptions were very rigidly defined? Do the Government take seriously the opinion of the International Court of Justice? Do they propose to initiate any kind of discussions on the implications? Or is the whole matter simply to be left as it is?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, so far as I can see, a large majority in the court found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. That was perfectly clear. We have made it clear that we would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in self-defence and in extreme circumstances. That is absolutely clear. The point is that, taken as a whole, the opinion of the court does not give rise to any new factors affecting the fundamental principles of our nuclear posture. The text of Article VI makes clear that each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures. I do not think there is the lack of distinction which the noble and learned Lord tries to pose.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if no new factors arise from the decision of the international court, why do the Government have difficulty in acceding to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, those are under consideration, as the noble Lord knows.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in these circumstances and if the Minister says that the Government are so reasonable, what is stopping them entering into a convention on the matter? They entered into a convention on nuclear weapons. So why can they not equally enter into a convention to obtain some certainty on this matter which at the moment depends entirely on interpretation? I must inform the Minister that her interpretation and the Government's interpretation are not widely accepted outside the nuclear states.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not think that I have anything to add to my previous answers. We know that the recommendation for an end to nuclear testing has been largely met by the conclusion of the CTBT. We also know that all such matters are reviewed when necessary. We have made much progress on disarmament. In fact, we have led much of it by the elimination of our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and the withdrawal of our nuclear artillery and Lance missiles.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not another serious danger the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union which, according to press reports, are not protected securely by the Russian army? Can anything be done about that situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord should not always believe all that he reads in press reports. Nevertheless, I accept that we do not know enough about the safety of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. It is for that very reason that efforts have been made to get to know more and to help in the safe dismantling of such weapons. We may not be successful in that, but at least the West is trying.

Business of the House: Debate, 12th February
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill, has
122
consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Bill offers an important opportunity to the tenants of the Secretary of State's crofting estates to take on ownership of the estates and to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities which ownership will give them. I am grateful for the positive and constructive approach which noble Lords have taken in considering the proposals that we put before the House.
I am especially grateful to those Members of your Lordships' House who joined the Select Committee that took evidence both on Skye and in Inverness. Their contribution was significant. Specifically, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for his expert chairmanship of that Select Committee, and other Members, such as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I look forward to seeing the first proposals for crofting trusts emerge in the near future.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. Happily, I have had to do little work on it because it has all been done by my noble friends Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Thurso. I wish the Bill well. It is a very complex Bill and a great deal of work will have to be undertaken before viable and good crofting estates pass into the hands of workable bodies which can promote their well-being and expand the interests of the area. As I have said, I wish the Bill well, but it will be a long time before all the estates that are now in the Government's hands are in the hands of such bodies.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has spoken, I should like to thank in the first place the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his customary help and courtesy and for his work in helping us with the Bill. We are accustomed to such help and courtesy from him, but that does not mean that he should never receive a word of thanks.
I should also like to put on record my gratitude to the crofters of the Annishadder and Borve estates and of the other estates on Skye which we visited, who gave their time so generously to help us. We learned a great deal from our visits to them and we were all very grateful for their help.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Extension of s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to prohibit certain small firearms etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2. line 9, leave out ("small").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10, 12, 16, 27 to 29, 39, 41 to 46, 48 to 50, 52 and 53. The amendments stand in my name and are all minor and consequential. They seek to ensure that visitors with firearm or shotgun permits are treated the same as firearm and shotgun certificate holders in respect of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, as Amendment No. 2 has been spoken to, I should point out that there is a mistake and that the amendment should read:
"Page 2, line 11, leave out ("7 below") and insert"—
the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("7 below") and insert ("(Weapons and ammunition used for tranquillising animals).
(7A) In sections 2 to (Weapons and ammunition used for tranquillising animals) any reference to a firearm certificate shall include a reference to a visitor's firearm permit.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order, but, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and as I attached my name to Amendment No. 3, perhaps I may move it. I have not come prepared to do so so my remarks will be very brief. I move the amendment because it seems to me that this is the only sensible way to ensure that when this legislation is passed, as it obviously will be, those people who engage in national and international sport of a very pleasant and harmless kind are not deprived of the right to do so.
It seems to me that much about the Bill smacks of what I have called before—and have no hesitation in doing so again—the "something must be done" school of policy making. By that I mean that in reaction to some emotional or other impetus people seize upon a single measure in an attempt to solve a very complicated problem, whether it be nuclear weapons, landmines or pistols.
Whatever one's opinion of the Bill may be, it is quite clear that it has now acquired a momentum of its own and that it will, in one form or another, pass into law. However, I believe that there are certain measures which we can take to mitigate the impact of this measure on
124
law-abiding people who seek only to pursue what I would call harmless and diverting pastimes. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I believe it would have been the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to speak also to Amendment No. 4, I should point out to the House that there is a printing error on the Marshalled List in that the names of those supporting the amendment should have included the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present at the start of this debate. In fact, I was caught on the wrong foot by the speed with which the previous business progressed.
In speaking to Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4, which is the principal amendment in this group. I should tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has asked me to apologise to the House for the fact that he cannot be here to support the amendment because he is chairing a Select Committee.
In our proceedings on Report a week ago, on 4th February, (Hansard col. 1543) an amendment was not debated which would have allowed the .32 wadcutter to be treated in the same way as .22 and smaller calibres. Subsequently, an amendment to allow the vital parts of .32 wadcutters to be kept in licensed premises or disassembled was lost. Therefore, for procedural reasons, the amendment cannot apply only to .32 wadcutters. Its purpose is to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain specified competition pistols from Clause 1 of the Bill. In particular, it will allow him to make special provisions for the .32 wadcutter, which is a pistol used in the Commonwealth Games.
The amendment does not restrict the Home Secretary in any way and could apply to other competition pistols. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not suggest that it is going too far. Other calibres will only be allowed if the Secretary of State and Parliament want them. The amendment will merely allow them to be introduced without the need for primary legislation.
The amendment meets the specific concerns of my noble friend the Minister expressed during our debate a week ago. Then, my noble friend argued that the amendment, which was subsequently lost and which related only to the .32 wadcutter, was too loosely drawn. My noble friend said:
"My information is that the wording of this amendment is not strictly related to the wad-cutter… It is open to wider interpretation…There are concerns that by exempting one type of .32 calibre handgun, loopholes will be created so that all guns of such calibre will be freely available. Other .32 calibre pistols capable of firing high velocity rounds several times more powerful than the .22 rimfire and wad-cutter cartridges could be allowed through".— [Official Report, 4/2/97; col. 1565.]
This amendment, therefore, closes any such highly unlikely loophole because the Secretary of State will be able to decide which pistols are to be permitted and which are not. For example, pistols used in the Commonwealth Games, which are chambered only for use with the .32 Smith and Wesson long wadcutter cartridge, could be permitted. There is no possibility of

125
other types of .32 or higher calibre pistol being "freely available" unless the Home Secretary and Parliament expressly permit them.
To appreciate why the loophole was in any case improbable, one has to understand a little about the .32 wadcutter cartridge and its weapon. To start with, the Government's own adviser (Mr. Warlow) has confirmed that,
"the striking energy is comparable to middle-of-the road .22 rimfire loadings".
Pistols which fire the .32 wadcutter are clearly designed and used to fire only that round. To do otherwise would put an individual who fired them at great risk. All the experts are agreed on this but I shall not weary your Lordships with the detail, unless pressed to do so by my noble friend or other noble Lords.
The likelihood of criminal misuse of a pistol which is only safe to use with a wadcutter cartridge is negligible. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will have the power under the amendment to ban any other type of cartridge other than the .32 wadcutter and any pistol which is not specifically used to fire that round.
During the Report stage my noble friend the Minister tried to suggest that such pistols could be converted to fire higher calibre cartridges. She said (at col. 1565 of Hansard) that,
"there is also the possibility of handguns already chambered for this particular cartridge being technically modified to fire the more dangerous round. That would constitute a very serious risk to public safety".
It is theoretically true that with machine tools a very crude conversion of a .32 revolver chamber, although not a .32 pistol, could be achieved to enable it to fire a .32 Harrington and Richardson magnum cartridge. However, that is an entirely unlikely scenario. An individual would need to go through the licensing system to obtain a legal .32 revolver. He would then need to manipulate the revolver with machine tools in order to lengthen the chamber in some way to ensure that the longer Harrington cartridge could fire. This really is a non-starter, given the number of illegal firearms in circulation which are far easier and cheaper to acquire, as we have noted before.
Even if the criminal were prepared to go to such lengths, both the revolver used to fire the .32 Harrington and Richardson magnum cartridge and the cartridge itself are very uncommon in the United Kingdom. There are only a handful of such revolvers in existence and the cartridges are just as rare. Faced with these difficulties, it is most unlikely that any criminal would attempt to modify a rare revolver to fire a rare cartridge instead of simply buying one of the millions of illegal weapons freely available on the black market.
All the evidence confirms that competition pistols are not modified and used in crime. Indeed, my noble friend confirmed on Report that the wadcutter cartridge simply does not feature in crime. My noble friend Lord Kimball had asked whether there were any examples of wadcutters being used in crime. In reply my noble friend the Minister said
"The answer is, very definitely, no".—[Official Report, 4/2/97; col. 1566.]
126
The Government's adviser, Mr. Warlow, goes even further. In his letter of 15th November 1996, he said:
"We have never seen this target wadcutter—or the specialist pistols used with it—in criminal casework submissions in the last 25 years or so".
It would appear that the Government cannot justify banning the .32 wadcutter on its merits. It seems that their real objection is purely bureaucratic, as set out in a letter from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to a Mr. C. A. Ewing on 21st November last year:
"I do not believe that a distinction can be made between these guns and other .32 guns and that the only certain and logical basis on which to draw a distinction by calibre is at the point of the .22 rimfire".
We should remember that the distinction drawn by Lord Cullen was not by calibre but by lethality, by killing power. On that test the .32 wadcutter is the same as the .22. The effect of banning these specialist pistols within the Bill is therefore to destroy a longstanding sport for the sole reason that the Home Office has not tried to produce a definition.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recognises this effect of the Bill. On 18th November last year he said in another place,
"I have authority under section 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1968 to enable that event to take place in Manchester in 2002 if the organisers of the Commonwealth games wish it".—(Official Report, Commons, 18/11/96; col. 743.]
We are pretty sure that they will wish it, as the .32 wadcutter event is one of the Commonwealth Games' central events. However, unbelievably, my right honourable friend went on to say, again at col. 743,
"British competitors will not be able to practise in this country for that event".
That is the incredible situation which this amendment seeks to alleviate.
I have to repeat the question which has been put to my noble friend and not yet answered, I think. In what other sport would a Minister dare to declare that his own country's top level sportsmen were less to be trusted than sportsmen from overseas? The amendment offers the Secretary of State an opportunity to overturn this injustice by allowing competitors to practise and so take part in the .32 event in Manchester on an equal footing. The .32 centre fire event is a most popular event of the Commonwealth Games. The British team has a proud history in the event and has long excelled in it.
The amendment does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I hope that no noble Lord will claim that it does. It merely offers the Government an enabling provision, with the approval of Parliament, to get them and any future government off the .32 wadcutter hook upon which they have so unfortunately impaled themselves. Who knows? Pistol shooting fashions may change. Even a Labour government in some distant future may wish to avail themselves of this sensible amendment. I commend it to the House and trust that my noble friend and noble Lords opposite can accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord acknowledges fairly that he has used a wording device to circumvent the convention of this House that

127
one does not introduce at Third Reading an amendment covering the same point as one rejected by the House on Report. The Government may object to that; I cannot object because I have done it myself on a number of occasions. Until dissolution I may have to do so again. However, I warn the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, against taking the amendment to a vote. First, he ought to know that a Labour Home Secretary would certainly not take advantage of an amendment of this kind to extend the definition of small calibre pistol.
Secondly, I must say in defence of the English language that if Parliament means there to be a small calibre pistol it does not mean that a future Humpty-Dumpty as Home Secretary will say, "When I say a word, it means what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less." The noble Lord's amendment states that a small calibre pistol will mean a small calibre pistol, but it could mean anything else he wants it to mean. That is an offence to the English language. The amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should very much like to know how the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would have responded to the kind of argument which he has just deployed if it had come from some other section of the House. He is skilled at these things. I think he would have treated it with the utmost derision.
I understand perfectly well that this is rather a small, narrow amendment. I cannot avoid the impression that if my noble friend cannot accept so modest a proposal she will once again allow us a rather close look at the flimsy structure of logic on which the Bill is founded.
I do not want to delay your Lordships but again I am impressed by the large number of perfectly ordinary, well behaved citizens who would not dream of using any privilege accorded them as a means, or an encouragement, to break the law. They are law abiding citizens. Gratuitously to offend, in the wake of a serious shock, the feelings of such people is something which no wise government ought to do without second thoughts. Even at this late stage I hope that my noble friend will not be disposed just to say, "I am afraid I cannot accept this".
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I support the measure. However, I wish to criticise my noble friend Lord Peyton for something he said. He suggested there is a flimsy structure of logic behind the Bill. That is a gross exaggeration; there is no logic whatever.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is important to remember that this is an enabling amendment. Exactly a week ago at col. 1550 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated that Labour—or, more specifically and importantly, Labour's Front Bench—was prepared to adopt a neutral line, or even a somewhat sympathetic line, towards a similar enabling amendment; that of my noble friend Lord Attlee concerning disassembly. It is surprising that apparently he is not prepared to take a similar line on this amendment, particularly bearing in mind that there
128
would be the safeguard that the regulations, if introduced, would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
If a new provision were subsequently taken advantage of by a Home Secretary—Labour or otherwise—it would certainly save money which could better be diverted, in the case of Labour being in power, to some of Labour's manifold social priorities. But above all it would allow British sportsmen and British sportswomen—there is a considerable number of successful women shooters in this country—to practise .32 pistol shooting in their own country without having to skulk off to the Continent to practise. If that were to happen Britain would be the laughing stock of the Commonwealth and of Europe.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not possible that the Government's Amendment No. 71 might, if accepted, give the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, exactly what he is asking for?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the amendment. We are talking about a highly technical matter. We have had amendments where we have discussed the energy of particular rounds. A new departure in this argument has been presented to me regarding energy per square inch relating to the diameter of a bullet. It is clearly a highly technical subject. Perhaps the matter is not suitable to be incorporated on to the face of the Bill. Therefore it is better to incorporate it into secondary legislation. However, the secondary legislation would still have the benefit of full parliamentary control.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, touched on the difficulties of a .32 pistol being able to accommodate a .32 long cartridge. The Secretary of State could define a pistol which would eliminate the possibility of its being fitted with a cylinder long enough to take the .32 long. Therefore the cylinder could only take a .32 wadcutter. That would address that particular issue. We also have the problem of the use of the .32 wadcutter at the Commonwealth Games. I understand the intention of the Secretary of State is to take advantage of Section 5 of the 1968 Act.
However, I understand that Section 5 enables the defence counsel to decide whether a specific gun can be authorised. The role of the defence counsel is to decide on issues of defence, not to balance the interests of sport against those of public safety. I am not sure that Section 5 of the 1968 Act is a proper vehicle for allowing .32s at the Commonwealth Games. I believe that the amendment addresses the problem in a more appropriate way and allows a future Secretary of State, after the election, to provide a better solution to the whole ghastly problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with reference to Amendment No. 71. Amendment No. 71 relates specifically—it is a rather narrow power that is being considered—to transitional arrangements only. Therefore it would not be possible for any Home Secretary to use that power to extend the calibre of guns exempt from Clause 1 of the Bill.

129
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify any pistol or type of pistol which would then be exempt from the general prohibition on handguns.
The pistols concerned would be treated as small calibre pistols for the purposes of the Bill. They would have to be kept in licensed pistol clubs, and could not be removed from them without a permit issued by the police under Clause 12 of the Bill.
The Government's position on small calibre pistols has been clear from the beginning. We believe that a distinction must be drawn between small calibre pistols of the type defined in the Bill—that is of .22 inch calibre or less, and rimfire—and all other types of handgun.
I am aware that there have been a number of representations to the Government saying that various other types of handgun—notably the Smith and Wesson .32 inch long target wadcutter cartridge—should be added to the list of those which are exempt from the ban. The Government have listened to and considered those very carefully.
The restriction to .22 inch rimfire draws a clear line as to what is allowed. The construction of the rimfire cartridge from a single piece of drawn metal places a finite limit upon its power.
However, the Government acknowledge that the amendment is targeted at the .32 inch wadcutter which is used in many target shooting competitions; that these handguns are no more powerful than the .22 inch rimfire pistols which will be permitted to be stored in licensed pistol clubs; and that they are technically very difficult to convert.
But the Government have had to draw a categoric line which they have chosen to do in terms of calibre size. Any handguns which exceed .22 inch rimfire will not be permitted. This has been a consistent government line in their response to Lord Cullen's report, and as set out in the Bill.
The House voted on the .32 inch calibre exemption tabled by my noble friend Lord Swansea at Report stage. That amendment was lost in this House by 158 votes to 102.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson would give an open-ended power to a future Secretary of State to allow any handguns of whatever calibre, subject of course to the resolution of Parliament.
The Government have taken pains to ensure that the Bill allows target pistol shooting to continue with small calibre pistols as defined in a way which poses the minimum of risk to public safety. The inclusion of other types of pistol in the exempt category would inevitably open out that risk. The Government see no case, and foresee no case, for doing that. It follows that we consider that a provision which allowed the Secretary of State at some future date to include other types of
130
handgun would be redundant. It would be unnecessary and, we believe, undesirable. For those reasons I am unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lady Blatch made the same mistake when they implied that only the Home Secretary would be able to decide any future calibre of pistol to be used. That is not what the amendment states. It provides that the Home Secretary could suggest that a new calibre could be used, in particular the .32 wadcutter, which would allow us to compete in the Commonwealth Games, but that it would be subject to the approval of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to some future Home Secretary, I think as "Humpty-Dumpty". I assume that he is not thinking, therefore, of a Labour Administration in that regard.
My noble friend Lady Blatch spoke about the construction of a rimfire cartridge being in some way safer than the construction of a central fire cartridge. I am advised that there is no measurable distance between the firepower, the killing power, the lethality, of a rimfire cartridge and a wadcutter cartridge. From the very complicated table of muzzle velocities and striking powers with which I have been furnished, I have to tell noble Lords that the .32 wadcutter—at which the amendment is mostly aimed—has a muzzle energy of 115 ft/lbs. That is less than the muzzle energy of the majority of the .22 cartridges which the Bill permits.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Blatch suggested that the amendment had been lost at Report stage. That is not so. My noble friend Lord Swansea did not move this amendment; it was Amendment No. 6 at Report stage. The amendment that was lost would have allowed the wadcutter to be included within the category of disassembly. I believe that it was my Amendment No. 24. The amendment has not been debated and divided on previously.
I find my noble friend's answer every bit as unconvincing as her previous response on disassembly. I very much regret that I have to ask the opinion of the House.
3.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 171.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Brookes, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Chalfont, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Chapple, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L

Blake, L.

Chorley, L.

131

Clancarty, E.

Monson, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Moran, L.

Congleton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Moyne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Onslow, E.

Cross, V.

Palmer, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Peel, E.

Erroll, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Exmouth, V.

Raglan, L.

Flowers, L.

Rees, L.

Gage, V.

Rennell, L.

Gisborough, L.

Romney, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rowallan, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Sandford, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sandwhich, E.

Howell, L.

Savile, L.

Hylton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon, V.

Ilchester, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inchyra, L.

Swansea, L.

Kitchener, E.

Swinfen, L.

Knollys, V.

Taverne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Temple of Stowe, E.

McNair, L.

Teviot, L.

Manton, L.

Thurso, V.

Marsh, L.

Torphichen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Milverton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wynford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Courtown, E.

Acton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Addington, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Addison, V.

Cuckney, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

David, B.

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Desai, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Balfour, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Downshire, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dubs, L.

Beloff, L.

Dundee, E.

Biddulph, L.

Dundonald, E.

Blatch, B.

Elibank, L.

Blease, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Erne, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Feldman, L.

Byford, B.

Ferrers, E.

Cadman, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Calverley, L.

Fitt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Flather, B.

Carlisle, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gainford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Geraint, L.

Carter, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Glenamara, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Goschen, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gregson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grenfell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

132

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Haskel, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Nicol, B.

Hayman, B.

Norrie, L.

Hayter, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Henley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Holderness, L.

Paul, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Pender, L.

Home, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hood, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howe, E.

Prentice, L.

Hughes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Ironside, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthom, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Richard, L.

Kimball, L.

Richardson, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lindsay, E.

Selborne, E.

Long, V.

Serota, B.

Lucas, L.

Sewel, L.

Luke, L.

Shannon, E.

Lyell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Stallard, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Sudeley, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McNally, L.

Terrington, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden. B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Varley, L.

Mersey, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Methuen, L.

Wigoder, L.

Middleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Firearms of historic interest]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("1919") and insert ("1946").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to exempt "heritage" pistols, and a government amendment provided for that. One aspect of that amendment continues to give concern; namely, the early limit on the date that allows exemption from prohibition, 1st January 1919. In the original draft of an amendment to deal with heritage pistols, the Heritage Arms Rescue Committee proposed that for the purpose of the relevant section a heritage firearm should mean "any short firearm of a type which was first made before 31st December 1918". I stress the phrase, "first made". By thus defining a heritage pistol, the

133
difficulty that may arise in proving that a particular pistol, although clearly of pre-1919 design, was actually made prior to that date would be avoided.
The government amendment, by limiting heritage status to pistols manufactured before 1919, invites the very difficulty that the committee sought to avoid. Moreover, given that Britain—uninvaded during two world wars and long a major auction centre for historic arms—is a repository of fine European heritage arms made after 1919, the wording will inevitably cause valuable and interesting pieces to be destroyed or permanently exiled overseas.
While having recognisable significance as the end of the Great War, 1919 has less relevance to the manufacture of pistols. Variations of the Mauser of the type carried by Churchill in the Sudan, for example, continued to be manufactured up to and during the Second World War, as were variations of the Luger. The historical significance of both types is reflected in their financial values. A naval Luger pistol, for example, normally realises £1,400 to £1,800 at auction; with accessories the same pistol will fetch about £3,000.
Estimates prepared by the Heritage Arms Rescue Committee based upon confidential information from the auction houses, the trade and the Historical Breechloading Smallarms Association suggest that the aggregated value of privately held heritage pistols in this country is as high as £31 million. Many of the pistols that go to make up that figure will have been made after 1919. Thus, were the terminus that defines "heritage pistols" to be brought forward, the cost of compensating owners for their losses must be reduced.
For "trophies of war", which would be exempted from prohibition, the Government propose in Clause 6 a 1st January 1946 terminus following amendment in Committee. With that date having been accepted by the Government in a context analogous to that of heritage pistols, I propose a simple but brief amendment to Clause 7 which would bring the two termini into accord. Since the Heritage Arms Rescue Committee proposes that possession of heritage pistols will be authorised by a firearm certificate with no ammunition permitted, there would be no measurable risk to public safety. That is a point which the Government appear to have accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may set at rest my noble friend's mind. The previous clause, Clause 6, deals with trophies of war. It refers to any firearm,
"which was acquired as a trophy of war before 1 January 1946".
My noble friend desires the identical date for a firearm of historic interest. I should have thought that most of the firearms he might have in mind were trophies of war, manufactured before January 1946. Therefore, frankly, those concerned will not suffer much if they find that they cannot treat firearms of historic interest made before 1946 as being covered by the Bill. I should have thought that there was no need for the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, with the leave of the House, they are two separate points. On the one hand there is the trophy of war. That could be any pistol
134
which was captured during the war and which was a trophy. Heritage pistols may well have been bought by collectors without any link to capture on the battlefield. I mentioned the Churchill Mauser which was not captured but which is obviously a great historical weapon.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as regards the manufacture of pistols, we are talking of recent times in referring to 1946.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I support the amendment. Our arms heritage is an extremely important part of our total historical heritage and within it pistols feature prominently. Although we are grateful to the Government for the exemption which extends to 1st January 1919 that date does not coincide with any considerable historical watershed or any technological one. In terms of historical context, a date around the mid to late 1940s far more closely corresponds to the end of our imperial aspirations and our fighting to consolidate and then retain the Empire. It would also embrace pistols of the Second World War, so underlining their place in world and European, as well as imperial and British, heritage.
Much of our national heritage in pistols is held in large private collections. For those who have so much financially at stake, the loss of their holdings represents a loss in some cases of a major part of their personal assets. Under existing proposals, only a proportion would qualify for the Bisley exemption. So there would be a severe, perhaps in many cases irresistible, temptation to send collections overseas. For a nation to contrive the loss of a significant part of its heritage and the heritage of the Commonwealth is surely misguided, some would even say reprehensible.
The adoption of the amendment would save many post-1919 pistols of real interest and significance at no cost whatever to public safety. They would be kept—disassembled if required—without ammunition. Moreover their age and outmoded design make them very unlikely targets for anyone seriously bent on crime. Spare parts are very difficult to locate, even at present; the task will be yet more problematic after the Bill is passed.
After all is said, the historic pistols that the amendment seeks to preserve include some which were carried in our darkest hour, our finest hour. They are as much part of the story of this country's survival as are the carefully preserved Cabinet War Rooms in Whitehall; the anti-invasion pillboxes and other defences scattered across our countryside now at last being systematically listed to ensure their survival; or the Spitfires and Hurricanes so devotedly kept in flying condition by armies of enthusiasts. There is no valid reason to discriminate against historic pistols. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments would extend the provisions in Clause 7 to allow historic handguns to be kept at home as part of a bone fide collection. I understand the reasons behind the amendment. It would increase the number of handguns

135
that may be kept at home, especially those that were manufactured in the inter-war years and during World War Two. I know that the police have expressed grave doubts about the greater availability of the weapons and the risk to public safety that they would create.
Under Clause 7 as at present drafted certain historic handguns manufactured since 1919 would not be destroyed but could be stored at sites designated by the Secretary of State. Such sites would have to meet similar security standards as the licensed pistol clubs. This would allow the historic guns to be safely stored, reducing the risks to the public but allowing the guns to be appreciated by their owners and others.
For all the reasons I have given as well as the point made by my noble friend, we believe that we are talking about relatively recent guns in a collection. Therefore, we find the amendment unacceptable as a compromise and are unable to accept it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friends for supporting me. Clearly there is no point in going to a Division. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
("Exemption for weapons etc. used for tranquillising animals
WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION USED FOR TRANQUILLISING ANIMALS
. The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba), (b) or (c) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer any firearm, weapon or ammunition designed or adapted for the purpose of tranquillising or otherwise treating any animal, if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to possess, or to purchase or acquire, the firearm, weapon or ammunition subject to a condition restricting its use to use in connection with the treatment of animals.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, under the Bill as currently drafted vets will be eligible to apply to the police for a firearm certificate allowing them to hold a high calibre handgun and expanding ammunition for use in connection with the humane destruction of animals. As part of their professional duties vets also have recourse to pistols, rifles and blowpipes for administering tranquillising darts or darts containing other medicines such as antibiotics to sick animals. Under the current legislation the Secretary of State's authority is required, under Section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968, for the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale or transfer of any lethal barrelled weapon used for the discharge of any noxious substance and any ammunition which contains such noxious substances.
This gives rise to an anomaly. Under the Bill a vet will need only a Section 1 certificate, granted by the police, for a high calibre handgun used to kill animals. But for merely putting an animal to sleep or treating it with a specially adapted gun he will need the higher
136
level authority from the Secretary of State. This amendment has the effect of allowing tranquillising guns and darts simply to be covered by a specially conditioned Section 1 firearm certificate issued by the police.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is content with the change. Both the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales, and the sister association in Scotland, have been consulted and are content that the change does not pose any greater risk to the public. The tranquillising equipment would still need to be held by a vet on a firearm certificate issued by the chief officer of police. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Expanding ammunition etc.: exemptions from prohibition]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("second") and insert ("first").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 perhaps I may say that there is a minor error on the Marshalled List of which parliamentary counsel are aware. In Amendment No. 40, the last line should include the words "Section 27" instead of "Section 26".
I apologise for the number of the amendments, which are technical and drafting. The group comprises Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 13 to 15, 19, 22, 30 to 37, 40, 47, 51, 54, 59 to 67, 69, 72 to 79, and 81. They concern consistency of language and clarity and have no policy implications whatever. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, in this group of amendments I shall refer first to Amendment No. 30. There is a considerable difference between the word "surrender" and the word "deliver". Let me give your Lordships an example. When a keeper whom I employed suddenly died I found, rather to my horror, that not having the estate's .22 and .243 rifles on my certificate, I could not take those guns to my house. They had to be taken to a firearms dealer to be looked after until my certificate was altered. I surrendered the guns to the police, who then delivered the guns to an agreed firearms dealer. The police, would not permit me to drive five miles to deliver the rifles in question to the firearms dealer. So I believe that there is quite a difference.
I realise that Clause 27 deals with clubs. However, I feel that there could be some delay. I remind your Lordships that most steel gun cabinets have two locks and each lock requires a different key. If the police take away the keys, that at least makes it secure. That is my first point on my noble friend's amendment.
In Amendment No. 69 to Clause 80, unless I am mistaken, the letter (b) should not be there at all.
Those are my only comments on the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wondered whether my noble friend Lord Balfour would raise the point. I believe that our amendment covers all my noble friend's concerns. Clause 27 of the Bill to which

137
Amendment No. 30 refers, sets out precisely what would happen as regards the licence for a small calibre pistol club were that licence ever revoked. First, one would hope that there would be no occasion to revoke such a licence. But it is in the nature of legislation such as this that one covers all possible eventualities. My noble friend referred to one such eventuality.
The revocation would be a matter for the Secretary of State who issues the licence under Clause 27. He would send a notice to the responsible officer of the club or possibly to other members of the club if there were reason not to send it to the responsible officer. There must be provision, under the circumstances, for the small calibre pistols which are held at the club, and so the notice will require the people to whom it is sent to deliver them to the police. They would remain the property of their owners who would be able to join other clubs or sell them to firearm dealers if they prefer.
I understand my noble friend's concern. Whereas the Bill currently specifies that the pistols must be surrendered to the police, the amendment would require them to be delivered. In practice, that would mean the same thing and hence the amendment. The Government envisage that if one of the licences is revoked, the police would deliver the Secretary of State's notice to the club and they would therefore be on the premises to take delivery. The club members would deliver the guns to the police simply by handing them over, just as they would do if the Bill required them instead to surrender them.
There is also provision under Clauses 10 and 12 of the Bill for delivery to be effected by the club to the police station either by the responsible officer or by a third party, if by any chance that seemed the right thing to do. But we do not envisage that happening in practice, even if the time should come when any of the small calibre pistol licences issued under the Bill were revoked.
The point of the change from "surrender" to "deliver" in this clause is to clarify the fact that members of a licensed club do not forfeit their ownership of the pistols kept there by reason of that revocation. The clause already provides that the owners may recover those pistols from the police. So there is no change in policy in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4. line 9, after ("ammunition") insert ("to use").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Having small-calibre pistol outside premises of licensed pistol club]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert ("or a visitor's firearm permit").
Page 4, line 39, after ("by") insert ("virtue of').
Page 4, line 43, after ("certificate") insert ("or visitor's firearm permit").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Firearm certificates to be subject to special conditions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 16:
138
Page 5, line 34, after ("for") insert ("the grant or renewal of').
Page 5, line 37, after ("applicant") insert ("or, as the case may be, renewed").
Page 6, line 6, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("a condition requiring the pistol to be kept at a licensed pistol club.").
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—
("(5) A holder of a visitor's firearm permit who commits an offence under section 17(10)(b) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 tin this Act referred to as "the 1988 Act") by failing to comply with any condition mentioned in subsection (1) or (3) above is punishable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a tine (or both); and

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Permits to have small-calibre pistols outside licensed pistol clubs]:
Lord Harmsworth Lord Harmsworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 10, after ("pistol") insert ("or for a pistol of a specified calibre under section (Police and military shooting clubs: specified exemptions)(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 20, 21, 23 and 26. These amendments, of which Amendment No. 26 is the substantive one, allow serving members of police and military shooting clubs to continue to practise with large calibre weapons, consisting mainly of the types used in service, while off duty. Their weapons must be stored only in police and military armouries.
On Report, I gave notice that I might resubmit the amendments to your Lordships, having had a chance to consider the reply last week of my noble friend the Minister. I had also hoped that the amendments of my noble friend Lord Pearson might help me in my cause, but I regret that his disassembly amendment, to which your Lordships agreed, does not help me much.
Off duty police and military serving officers are caught by the Bill. I firmly believe that that is very much against the public interest. The next Dunblane, as I said on Report, may be a very different kind of Dunblane from the last one, where police and military marksmanship may be utterly crucial to the outcome. In armed robbery, where innocent bystanders are involved; in hostage taking, where, heaven forbid, children might be involved; or in terrorist acts, skills with weapons may be utterly crucial. As I said on Report, one can never get enough practice.
Under the Bill, police and military personnel will be restricted to the use of .22s when shooting off duty, just like any other member of the public. I simply do not accept my noble friend's statement that there is no necessity for service training to be supplemented by practice during off duty hours. I cited the case of a firearms officer in the Dorset police force who is able to augment the amount of time spent in service training on pistols, which amounts to once every two or three months, by a factor of five or six. I believe that that is not untypical. I have since had a letter from another expert, who suggests that a typical firearms officer who

139
is a member of a police shooting club might fire 100 rounds of ammunition a week, against possibly 400 to 500 rounds a year on training.
This is likely to be the last opportunity to turn back from taking an irreversible and deleterious step. I do not feel that we should put ourselves in the position of failing to do the very best to allow those officers' marksmanship to be as perfect as it can be.
A former Inspector General, Doctrine and Training, Sir Peter Duffell, is in no doubt about the matter. His remarks apply equally to military and police personnel. I have no hesitation in reminding your Lordships of what the general said:
"Precision is all important—whether it be in making sure that the enemy is hit with the first shot (in modern warfare you seldom get a second chance) or in ensuring that innocent bystanders are not hit".
The Government say that the training is adequate. That, to my mind, is a rather Mandy Rice-Davis type of response. Both the MoD and the Home Office would have to say that and it must surely be technically true. But there is a world of difference between a basic acceptable standard and a training regime which can be improved upon by constant practice should the serving member of the police or military club wish to do better. That is the best position. Any amount of service training will be bettered by any amount of supplementary private practice. I would have thought that that was self-evident.
A desperate gunman, or gunmen, may have taken a hostage or hostages; they may be nervous and trigger-happy. Firearms officers will have only one chance to get it right. They must pick their moment. Surely their every nerve should be strained towards doing the right thing, to getting the timing right. The accurate use of the firearm must not be a matter for concern at that point. Its accurate use must be second nature: taken for granted. The police or military must be able to handle their weapons in the way that a very experienced driver handles his car, not one who has just passed his driving test. Off duty practice is a public safeguard.
To move on to storage: a central feature of the Cullen report was ownership and storage of handguns. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has drawn attention to what one might term the "gloat factor" in the wretched Thomas Hamilton affair. In my amendments no such opportunity for gloating ownership exists for legally held full-bore weapons. My amendments place their secure storage beyond reasonable doubt. They cannot be stored at home; they must be stored exclusively in military or police armouries. What could be safer than that? I understand that some police shooting club or military club weapons are already so stored, even if not on a permanent basis. The requirement to store large calibre weapons in such tight security will often result in no change from current practice. Armoury storage is a central pillar of the amendments I seek.
If your Lordships agree these amendments it would be in the knowledge that the members of these clubs will have been very closely vetted; that they are continually monitored by their immediate supervisors. Your Lordships would also be preserving a very valuable source of recruitment. Sir Peter Duffell was in no doubt about this when he said:
"I feel I should also stress the benefit the Armed Services derive from recruitment as a direct or indirect result of the activities of rifle and pistol clubs".
As I said on Report, I am not going to claim that the large calibre of the weapon is a sine que non so far as recruitment is concerned, but there must be an association.
The police too are in no doubt about the recruitment aspect. A former chief inspector and chief instructor of firearms, John Warner, states, and I précis:
"Police who have received only in-house training are initially surprised and embarrassed by the standards displayed by civilian shooters. In consequence many Policemen become motivated to improve and during my period with the Police I encouraged officers to take up shooting as a sport. In Police Firearms Training, shooting is just one of the skills to be acquired, but from them all, shooting skills (or lack of them) continues to be a worry for many policemen. It troubles them that other demands within the service do not permit more time/training to ensure higher standards. It is here that civilian clubs can, and do, offer additional opportunities to improve skills and confidence to those Policemen who become members. Clubs do not claim to give 'Police Training', more simply the regular opportunity to handle and use a firearm. Once a policeman feels more confident and at ease with his firearm, he is able to give more attention to strategy and tactics, etc., and this must contribute to safety and security".
My amendments also cover compensation. Compensation under the amendments may be had at any time. At Report stage my noble friend the Minister suggested that it might be a problem compensating serving personnel who, in due course, surrender their large calibre handguns, either owing to a decision to discontinue or owing to ineligibility to continue to possess them through, for instance, retirement from active service. I hope I have not misinterpreted my noble friend's meaning but she said:
"That would be a financial obligation on the public purse that would remain in perpetuity".—[Official Report, 4/2/97: co1.1576.]
That is so but I do not see the difficulty. They would simply receive compensation as if they had surrendered the weapons immediately under the Bill. The Secretary of State has great flexibility in Clause 15. Inflation could take its toll. That is a price I am sure any serving member would agree to pay. The longer the guns are kept the less the compensation, if the Secretary of State so determines. The burden on the taxpayer would be almost negligible, particularly given the small number of shooters involved in the first place.
My amendments are very narrow in their application. They are self-contained. They leave the Bill largely untouched. The serving police and military shooters who are affected by the amendments constitute a small number. I do not think they would amount to more than five or 10 per cent. of the total 60,000 shooters there are estimated to be in the sporting world. Their weapons are securely stored in

141
police or military armouries. They are shooters of the most vetted kind. They practise at no expense to the taxpayer. Their practice must contribute significantly to the public safety. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, he has brought this issue to us before, at Report stage. I think he does identify an important point, but not in the way that he has explained it. The important point is that the police and the military authorities will now have to devote far more time to training their personnel to the required standards. In other words, they will not be able to rely upon the efforts of individuals to do their own training.
However, I have not detected any pressure from outside in support of this amendment, even though I have looked for it—gently, I accept. Would this amendment apply to TA soldiers and special constables? Of course if it does, that would then provide a loophole which, if I were so disposed as a TA officer, I could possibly exploit. I wonder if the noble Lord has thought of that particular point?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is absolutely vital that policemen should be accurate and quick on the defensive draw, and it may well be true that the official training only allows 500 rounds which, we are told, is not adequate for training. If these policemen are to have their pistols in order to shoot in off-duty periods, where are they going to shoot them? I hope they are not going to practise in their backyard. In fact, they will not because they will keep their weapons in the armoury, and if their weapons are in the armoury then presumably they will be practising on their ranges. I hope that is so. If training periods are laid on for the police, I ask whether the police cannot go along when they are off duty and practise on the same ranges they normally use for official training. In fact, a good deal of the training could be done with the .22.
As well as accuracy, what is important is anticipating the right occasion to use a pistol. There are, of course, highly technical simulators which can show a variety of scenes going on. There may be a man in the boot of a car who swings round, sometimes with a pistol and sometimes without one. The police officer has a fraction of a second to decide whether or not to shoot. He shoots with a ray gun of some kind. He has to make that split second decision which saves his own life. It is what is done on simulators. It is an important part of training for hitting the right person at the right time. I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, only a minority of police officers are trained in the use of firearms. They are intensively trained. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, I do not consider that the amendment is necessary. I would be very concerned indeed were we to believe that police officers should be enabled to use firearms in the circumstances described in the amendment because it was the only way in which they could demonstrate they
142
were proficient. Have any representations been made to the Association of Chief Police Officers in favour of this proposition?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. There seem to be two salient points. First, highly respected senior police officers confirm that acceptance of the amendments would enable police officers to get in five or six times as much practice without any cost to the taxpayer than they would in the absence of the amendment. That must be good from the point of view of public safety. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, said, the guns in question will be securely locked up in police or military armouries. That also enhances public safety.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wish briefly to support my noble friend's amendments, particularly Amendment No. 26. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right and police officers receive sufficient training in the use of these weapons, I do not see how one squares that with what my noble friend Lord Harmsworth described as the allowance for service training-500 rounds once every two or three months or so.
I do not shoot with a pistol but I shoot with a rifle. I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to obtain accuracy with a rifle. I also know that it is very much more difficult to reach the required standards of accuracy with a pistol. Far too many people nowadays watch films and television where the villain, the cowboy or whoever it is draws a pistol, fires it and a hundred yards away a Red Indian or someone drops stone dead. It simply does not happen like that. Pistols are extraordinarily difficult to shoot accurately with. It requires a great deal of practice. I say with some regret to my noble friend Lord Gisborough that I do not think the simulated ray gun in the television studio is adequate. It does not deal with the question of recoil. That is absolutely vital for accuracy with a pistol.
There will be a very simple proof to this pudding in two or three years' time if police officers cannot shoot as accurately as they do today when they need to save their own lives or the lives of others. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will look kindly on this amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I wish to support that part of the amendment which deals with clubs. It is exceptionally important for us to understand that practice makes perfect. I am reminded of what my father said when he left this country to go to Guernsey. Someone asked him what he would miss most of all. He said, "the House". The person said what a lovely house it was. My father said, "No, no. I am not talking about my house. I am talking about the House of Lords. It is the best club in England". That is the important point. The club is a significant social institution.
Some noble Lords may know police officers who have been injured in the course of their duty and are disabled. Many noble Lords and many Members of another place are fit and able and sound of mind. However, by considering the Bill in its present form,

143
each of us, no matter what our political persuasion, will be party to a selfish castigation of a minority. I am speaking about the disabled. How little we have heard spoken of this group in our society. How little we have heard of the Bill's effect on them. What little attention has been paid to them by those who signed the Treaty of Rome. No mention has been made of the disabled.
The 5,000 disabled pistol shots need to use a club. Those 5,000 people do not go to the firearms club just to shoot. They go to socialise. For their own good and well being they may be closeted in one of the many fine homes specifically designed to care for the disabled. Although they may get on well with the others in the home, it is good, it is fun and it is interesting to enjoy a visit to "the club" to participate in activities that are practised at the club—whether it be bingo, bowls or target shooting. They can then compare notes and socialise with others.
We donate millions of pounds to unfortunates abroad who are plagued by famine, war, disease and drought, but what are we doing—the nannies of society, whether national or international—about our disabled? We know full well that in 1995 we passed the Disability Discrimination Act. But now we are racing through a Bill which has clauses and subsections that are so costly to implement that firearms clubs will close down. There will be no more shooting for the police in their spare time or any one else. There will be no more socialising—certainly not for the disabled. Some will say that if one club closes people can always go to another. That is simple for the able bodied, who can just jump into their car after work or at the weekend and go to another club. It is not so easy for a person in a wheelchair—for the one-legged, the one-armed or the blind. Clubs are to be financially squeezed out of existence.
I hope noble Lords will understand that what I am talking about is indirect discrimination. Whether it be at Pratt's, at a pub, at White's or at a wine bar, we socialise and select the beverage of our choice. That also goes for firearms clubs. It is to do with the club. Because a particular beer is removed from a pub, that does not mean that it closes down. I hope noble Lords will understand that this relates to firearms as well.
The enabling clause about which we heard earlier is fine for the able Secretary of State, no matter which party it may be, but it does not complement the disabled. Unfortunately, enablement does not lead to the return of fingers, arms and limbs. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, since time immemorial, Armed Forces and police forces have had their own arrangements for training their members in the use of pistols and other firearms. They are not mentioned in this Bill and that is not necessary. In order to set our minds at rest, in view of some of the things which have been said, can my noble friend assure us that those arrangements will continue?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments concern licensed pistol clubs used by police or military
144
personnel when off duty. The amendments will allow the police and military personnel to continue to shoot higher-calibre handguns at gun clubs as an exemption to the general prohibition on the use of higher-calibre pistols for sporting purposes. I explained at Report stage that service and police personnel receive training in the use of firearms on the same basis as they receive training in the other skills which they require in order to carry out their important work. I can give my noble friend Lord Renton and the House an absolute assurance that that will continue.
There is no strong argument that police officers and servicemen and women need to practise in their spare time in order to reach a suitable level of skill. In debate last week I promised that we would expedite inquiries with the police and the Armed Services to find out their views. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, we have done that. The Ministry of Defence and the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Scotland agreed with our assessment. In each case it was confirmed that training for the requisite standards of proficiency is provided for the police and personnel of the Armed Services and that when off duty—and they all stressed this point—they should be treated as private citizens. The position remains that this Bill will not compromise at all the levels of training of our Armed Services and the police.
I know that concerns have been expressed by my noble friend and others that it would be wrong to make an allowance for police or soldiers to be allowed to shoot higher calibre handguns for sport and recreation when law-abiding members of the public cannot do so. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Harmsworth answered the question as to whether that included members of the Territorial Army and/or special constables. I understand that technically both special constables and members of the Territorial Army could be subsumed, which would widen the provision very much and increase the numbers of people who could, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, get through this loophole.
There is another point. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, the Armed Forces and the police have their own facilities. As long as the chief officer authorises the use of those facilities, Armed Forces personnel and policemen and women can continue to use those facilities in what is technically off-duty time. As long as it is authorised by senior officers those facilities can be used. But as members of private clubs, they must be subject to their rules and shoot subject to the conditions set out in the Bill.
I am not sure that the point which was made quite passionately by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, on behalf of disabled people has much relevance to this particular amendment. Having said that, there is no discrimination against disabled people in the Bill. Disabled and able-bodied people will be able to shoot at gun clubs. They will all be subject to the limitation of .22 rimfire pistols. Membership will not be inhibited in any way. The conditions for using those clubs will not be

145
inhibited in any way. As I say, both disabled and able-bodied people will be subject to the controls set out in the Bill.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I did explain that it is indirect discrimination. If one closes a club one makes it that much more difficult for disabled people. I have spoken to such people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if a club closes that is as much of a problem for an able-bodied person as it is for a disabled person. People will be disenfranchised from being able to take part in a sport where sometimes there is only a single interest. At other times, it may be just one of a number of recreations enjoyed by a number of people. I am not saying that the plight of disabled people is not serious; I am simply saying that in this Bill we are not specifically discriminating against disabled people in any way which is different from the provisions relating to able-bodied people.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, also made a point about funding for clubs. They will be eligible to apply for national lottery funds. I made that point at an earlier stage of the Bill. I am sure that those clubs which cater for the disabled shooter will qualify for special consideration by the Sports Council and maybe even under the charities part of National Lottery funds.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I am very disappointed by my noble friend's reply. Before deciding what to do about this amendment perhaps I may address some of the points made in the debate. The first point is that the amendments apply to serving members of police and military shooting clubs. That will include anyone who is a serving member, including members of the Territorial Army. My noble friend Lord Gisborough asked where they would shoot. By and large members of police shooting clubs shoot in private police clubs, possibly on police or military ranges. As regards the military, because they are far more mobile than the police, I believe there is a tendency for them to shoot in private clubs.
I do not understand the worries over the use of large calibre guns by these people. The amendments require that they be stored in police and military armouries. Surely that is safe enough. Members of those clubs are also very heavily vetted and continuously monitored. Alas, the members of those clubs tend to keep to themselves. The police will shoot and keep themselves to themselves wherever they do so.
My noble friend Lord Pearson said that some of the weapons used on service are very difficult to use. I can certainly confirm that from yesteryear. Some of the weapons have a kick like a mule and practice with them is absolutely essential if they are going to be used in very difficult circumstances. Where innocent bystanders are about, accuracy is paramount. No end of practice can be anything but to the public advantage.
At Report stage I believe that my noble friend the Minister used the word "invidious" when referring to the scenario where a member of a military or police shooting club would be using a high calibre weapon
146
where there are other members who are not entitled to do so. A typical police shooting club consists of members who are serving officers, ex-police officers, possibly members of the family and civilians who work for the police. I do not see how anyone in such a club would fail to recognise the importance of continuing practice by serving members with weapons which they themselves would be denied. I am quite certain that they would understand that, to the point where they would welcome their being able to do it.
If this amendment is not accepted never again will police and military personnel be able to practise in their spare time on service weapons. They will be confined to .22s. I believe that this is thoroughly deleterious, and it is too serious a matter to leave to police and military training alone.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me if I intervene. If the facility for serving policemen and Armed Forces personnel is exclusive to their use with authorisation from a senior officer it is possible for them to shoot around the clock. I have before me letters from both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and a letter that deals with training of the Armed Forces. All say quite categorically that personnel will receive the training required to meet the proficiency levels of a serving police officer or member of the Armed Forces. All of them say unequivocally that when personnel are off duty and shooting in clubs with private members, that is, retired personnel, the families of personnel or those who are not members of serving families, they should be treated as private citizens. I repeat—it is important that noble Lords understand the position—that there is no question of compromising the training of our Armed Forces or policemen who are required to meet very high levels of proficiency in carrying out their duties.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I understand exactly what my noble friend has said. Nevertheless, it is the plain fact that training can be augmented by a factor of five or six. It is not untypical for that to happen as a result of off-duty practice. Surely, that says something to the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing whatsoever to stop serving personnel, either the police or the Armed Forces, from continuing their membership of private clubs and shooting, but they will be restricted to .22 pistols on those occasions. But on all those occasions when they shoot exclusively in their own facilities they will be able to use high-calibre guns, as is consistent with their training.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I did not catch the last part of my noble friend's answer. Is my noble friend saying that when not on duty police and military personnel can use ranges and high-calibre weapons?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, in that case my point is still good. I believe that this is too important a matter to leave. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.47 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
4.49 p.m.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon) moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("recognised") and insert ("designated").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 was spoken to with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 45, leave out ("the pistol") and insert ("such possession").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 was spoken to with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Compensation scheme for firearms dealers]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 20, after ("as") insert ("manufacturers or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to make it clear that manufacturers are included in the new clause which your Lordships passed on Report on 4th February. That amendment would pay compensation for loss of business to registered firearms dealers. During our debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who moved the new clause, was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, whether the definition of "registered firearms dealer" contained in the new clause covered manufacturers as well as dealers. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, replied to that question: "My Lords, that is right. The definition of registered firearms dealer includes manufacturer".—[Official Report, 4/2/97; col. 1583.]
148
It seems clear to many of us from that statement that the intention of the new clause was to cover manufacturers and that that intention was supported by your Lordships in a Division. Certainly, if I speak for myself, I thought that I was voting to include manufacturers in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, it now seems that the new clause does not have that desired effect. The definition of "registered firearms dealer" contained in that new clause covers some manufacturers but not all.
Some manufacturers, such as those who make pistols, will be covered by the new clause as they are required to be registered as a firearms dealer. However, there will be others who are not required to register as dealers who will be equally affected by the Bill. These include the manufacturers of, for example, holsters, targets, target holders, target patches, target systems, pistol cases, reloading equipment, lead bullets, and magazine loaders. Those manufacturers are an integral part of the pistol trade, and will be as adversely affected by the Bill as those covered by the new clause which your Lordships passed. There does not seem to be any logical reason to exclude them.
If any noble Lords are in doubt about the difficulty which some of these people will be caused, they should be aware of the typical example of an ammunition manufacturer, Roger Curtis, who has built up his own business (Hayes Manufacturing near York) supplying ammunition to shooting clubs and police. He took out a £30,000 bank loan and sold his home to raise a further £36,000 to start his business, which had a projected annual turnover of £75,000. He has already been forced into liquidation and has lost everything.
I am sure that other noble Lords have received letters from other such unfortunate people. I certainly have. They all tell the same sorry tale. Many other manufacturers are facing the same fate. The amendment will cover these individuals and is wholly in line with these sentiments behind the new clause which we passed on Report. Including these manufacturers is not akin to writing a blank cheque. The original new clause, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is tightly drafted to make payments only for:
"Loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1".
That is, prohibition of full bore handguns.
The merits of the case for compensating those who suffer business loss as a direct result of the Bill has already been accepted by your Lordships. This amendment is simply delivering the original intention behind that new clause to cover manufacturers. If the other place wishes to disagree with it when the Bill returns to it, that is of course its prerogative, as it is with all our amendments. On that basis, it is only honourable that this amendment be accepted today. I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the amendment, because it gives the House a chance to look more carefully at what arose last time. I should like briefly to

149
explain why I very much hope that the noble Lord and the House will not accept the amendment, and that he will not pursue it.
The starting point is to work out the principle upon which compensation should be payable. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the previous occasion rightly pointed out that if one allows an obligation to compensate to become too widespread, then it will become a clog, a real fetter, upon beneficial social and economic legislation of one kind or another. I agree with him.
The principle upon which compensation is payable can be summarised in this way: first, there must be a real and direct nexus or connection between the legislative ban and the business which is being destroyed or blighted as a result of the ban. There must be a close link. Secondly, those who carry on the business that is blighted or destroyed must have a reasonable or legitimate expectation of being permitted to carry on that business until the ban comes into force.
Those principles are the distillation of the principles in Commonwealth constitutional law on what constitutes a taking or interference of property that triggers a compensation entitlement and the case law under the European Human Rights Convention. If one has a licence to run a business—a restaurant, a butcher's shop—the licence creates a reasonable expectation that until it is terminated one can carry on with that business. Suddenly the legislator intervenes and says, "Sorry, you can no longer do so", and it is the combination of the direct link and the expectation created by the licence that, in those highly exceptional circumstances, triggers a right to some compensation—not full, but fair.
That is why Clause 17, as it stands, including the amendment that was carried on the previous occasion, limits the category of those who will be entitled to compensation to registered firearms dealers. They include manufacturers, but they include only manufacturers who have to be licensed as registered firearms dealers. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has indicated, his amendment would greatly widen the scope of the group to include any manufacturers who were wholly or mainly carrying on business as manufacturers and who suffered a loss of business as a direct result of the prohibition in Section 1 of the Act, as passed. That would widen the category far beyond what is required under the European Human Rights Convention or would be required in any system that had a constitutional guarantee of free speech.
The final thing I wish to say is a matter of politics and political judgment. We are concerned with the art of the possible, as the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, called his great autobiography. The art of the possible means, it seems to me, only passing amendments in this House that are likely to commend themselves to another place, especially in circumstances in which there is widespread popular support, rightly or wrongly—some might think wrongly—for an extremely wide draconian ban.
I am not an experienced politician, but it seems to me unwise, to say the least, to nibble away at the scope of the ban, as some other amendments have sought to do on the one hand, therefore losing sympathy for those
150
who want the ban, and at the same time to seek to widen the compensation terms in a way that goes beyond precedent or principle, will add to the taxpayers' bill and so cause unnecessary opposition in another place. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pursued. If it is, I for one shall not be in favour of it.
Earl Peel: My Lords, what concerns me about what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, is that legislation should depend upon what is an acceptable level of compensation in these matters. It seems to me that what we should be talking about is a matter of fairness. In that respect, I support the amendment. I believe that my noble friend is right. I said so on Report. I did not think that one year was sufficient or fair. I still take that view.
I believe three years would be fairer. But the noble Lord, Lord Lester, talked about the art of the possible—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, if the noble Earl will permit me to intervene, I believe that he is addressing a later amendment which I support. However, the amendment with which we are now concerned deals not with the three-year period but with widening the definition to include manufacturers. That is the amendment to which I am speaking in opposition.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I was involved in a similar amendment with regard to manufacturers. Perhaps I may continue to speak because my arguments still apply. We are indeed talking about the art of the possible, but we are at Third Reading of the Bill and I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for what he says and believe that one year was not very fair in the first place, I do not believe that now is the time to pursue this matter.
5 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, the whole of the Bill is fatally flawed, exactly like the Dangerous Dogs Act. I feel deeply sorry for the splendid and noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She has conducted her defence of an impossible Bill with the utmost dignity, courage and charm. In my view, she should be in the Cabinet where they need a bit of guts which they do not always display. The noble Baroness has plenty of them.
The Bill was borne out of hysteria and from the understandable anguish of the people of Dunblane. All parties have cynically competed with each other in milking the emotions which arose out of the Dunblane affair and they all ought to be ashamed of themselves. Not a single life will be saved by the Bill. There are many ways in which serial killers can kill. Indeed, as was said by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, it can be done with a cricket bat if one can terrorise enough people. One can certainly murder with a sawn off shotgun and just as easily in many other ways. It has been done in this country and elsewhere and one does not necessarily need a gun.
Many decent people have been or will be ruined to the point of suicide by the removal of a livelihood which they had expected to conduct for a long time. Their

151
profits have been lost well into the future and their businesses have been totally ruined. I have received letters from people saying that they will commit suicide if all this goes on much longer. Their properties have been extinguished and it is rather worse, well about on a par, with what Stalin did to the kulaks—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord realises that we are dealing with Amendment No. 24.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that this is also Third Reading
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, all right, but my comments are still relevant because the amendment is just as flawed. The compensation is either inadequate or non-existent—
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is keen to speak, but perhaps he is speaking on far too general a subject than the amendment. Perhaps he would save his comments for the debate on Bill do now pass.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I shall merely conclude by saying that the whole Bill should be repealed and sanity returned, and I hope that it will be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have heard a new principle enunciated today; that the House of Lords must do only what is possible—not what is right but what is possible. It is suggested that we must do what we believe the House of Commons will agree with. What kind of second Chamber is that? I had always understood that the House was here to examine legislation passed by the House of Commons and, if necessary, to revise it. If all we are going to do is to pass amendments that the House of Commons will agree to what on earth are we here for? We might just as well all go home and attend to our own business.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that I do not accept that principle. We are here as a second Chamber to revise legislation. If the House of Commons does not like it, its duty is to say that it does not agree with the revision and to send it back. Having understood that position, perhaps I may turn to the amendment—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the matter in case there is any misunderstanding. I do not suggest that we are to be—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, on a point of order, we are on Third Reading and Amendment No. 24. I understand that three speeches are
152
not permitted at this stage and now we have heard a fourth from the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, a question and not make a speech. Is he suggesting to the House that in its role as a revising Chamber, which is undoubtedly the role of the House, it should seek to amend the Bill in a way which does not accord with any recognised principle of legislation to compensate and which would certainly not be required by our international legal obligations? Is the noble Lord suggesting that we should in some other way legislate because we are a revising chamber?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we received clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but it is not satisfactory to me. I am concerned that this House should act in accordance with its role in the parliamentary process and in accordance with the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. If we followed the noble Lord's dictum those Acts would be nullified and completely useless.
Let me turn to the amendment—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for his support. I support the amendment because I was misled on Report when I was given the answer by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—it appears in col. 1583 of Hansard—that the 1968 Act covered manufacturers as well as dealers. I went on to refer to a manufacturer who manufactured only full bore handguns. When I voted for the amendment I understood from the answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that that manufacturer would be covered by the amendment. Seemingly, he is not covered by the amendment and therefore I believe that not only was he misled but the House was misled. I do not suggest that that was done intentionally, but the House has nevertheless been misled and John Slough of London, the manufacturer to whom I referred, is bound to have been misled by what was said in this House. I believe now that that position needs to be put right. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the impression given on Report was that manufacturers such as I have described were covered and that your Lordships will therefore put the matter right beyond peradventure by voting for the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment although I fully support it, but the noble Earl, Lord Peel, whose contributions have in general been so valuable during our proceedings on this Bill, seems totally to have misunderstood the amendment. It has nothing to do with raising the admittedly derisory level of compensation in the clause in question, but merely provides that it should be extended to gun manufacturers. That is all.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but that is one of the strangest things that I have ever

153
heard said—even in this House. If you extend the range of people who receive compensation, you increase the level of compensation. We have just been compared to Stalin and the kulaks, but the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made us mad as well as bad.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord is too clever to believe what he actually said. It is the individual level that counts, not the overall level.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment concerns Clause 17 of the Bill and would require the Government to make compensation payments to registered firearms dealers in respect of losses of business which are ascribed to the operation of this Bill.
Amendment No. 24 would make it clear that compensation should be made to persons and companies operating as manufacturers of ancillary equipment as well as to firearms dealers. As the House knows, we are opposed to payments of compensation for business losses by dealers and manufacturers of firearms and ammunition and we do not therefore support compensation payments to manufacturers of ancillary equipment. My understanding is that for the purpose of compensation, manufacturers are dealers. Therefore, the issue is not about including manufacturers, but that the amendment considerably widens the scope of payments to manufacturers of ancillary equipment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I was a little perplexed by the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, because I understood him to say that the principle of his amendment (which was accepted by your Lordships' House a week ago) was founded on a real and direct connection between the legislative ban and the businesses blighted. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that businesses which manufacture the holsters for pistols and pistol cases and the other items to which I referred in my opening remarks will inevitably suffer from a real and direct connection between their businesses and this deplorable legislative ban.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, was very encouraging in describing this as a bad and hopeless Bill. I hope that he may have more to say when we come to the question of whether the Bill should pass today. The noble Lord was right to imply that no amount of compensation is adequate to compensate the 57,000 people who will lose their hobby and the 2,000 to 3,000 licensed small businesses which, if this amendment is not passed, face ruin in various degrees of severity.
I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, shared my impression of what we were voting for a week ago when we passed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He was quite clear that, as we stand, he was misled on Report, as indeed was I, and that the 1968 Act covered all manufacturers as well as just dealers. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I are imputing any blame to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, but that is the situation.
154
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that this amendment, if passed, would increase the compensation payable and that is, of course, true, but that is only because we thought that it was included in the amendment that we passed a week ago.
I regret that my noble friend on the Front Bench has had the unpleasant duty of once again producing an entirely unreasonable, niggardly and mean reply to this amendment, but I think that if your Lordships are not in the mood to accept an amendment which would have enabled the Secretary of State to allow the wadcutter to be included in the Bill and therefore the British team to compete at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002, I hardly think that your Lordships will be in a frame of mind to accept this amendment which will cost the taxpayer more money. I therefore feel that I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 9, line 26, after ("years") insert (", or for the total period of trading if less than three years,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a refreshingly brief amendment and I trust that it is not controversial. It tidies up the new clause that was passed at Report stage to make payments for loss of business to dealers who are directly affected by the ban on full-bore pistols. The new clause provides for payments,
"equivalent to one year of after-tax profits of the business, based on the average after-tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years before the passing of this Act".
The problem is that that criterion will exclude new businesses—it appears to exclude new businesses—which will have been operating for less than the three specified years because there is no average of three years to apply. Many new gun traders started their business after 1994 and have been badly affected by the Bill. Hayes Manufacturing in York, to which I referred in my opening remarks on the last amendment, is one example. I cannot believe that it was the intention of the new clause to punish those new traders simply because they have been in business for less than three years.
The amendment addresses that discrepancy and would provide for an auditor to calculate a payment for compensation for the total period of trading if that business had been operating for less than three years. I very much hope that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will feel able to support the amendment and that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to do likewise.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the architect of what became Clause 17, I am happy to confirm that I regard this amendment as coming within the logic of Clause 17 as it stands. Perhaps I may explain the reason for that. As I sought to explain on the earlier amendment, the two principles underlying Clause 17 are, first, that there must be what I call a direct nexus between the ban and the damage to the

155
business and, secondly, that there must be a reasonable expectation on the part of the owners of the business that they would be able to continue trading but for the ban. It is that second point, which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, left out earlier, which is crucial.
It is essential to pay compensation because we are talking about licensed, registered firearms dealers—whether they be manufacturers or otherwise. That is why they come within the category that needs to be compensated. The noble Lord is right that it is illogical to exclude from the scope of the beneficiaries those new businesses which are registered, licensed firearms dealers. That is why including a three-year period in respect of them makes sense because on the date the Bill becomes law, they will have been registered firearms dealers, including manufacturers of firearms. I very much hope that this will not be regarded as a controversial matter. It is within the spirit of what the House has already approved. Therefore, I support it.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Pearson on two counts. First, I thought that he was speaking to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 earlier. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was right in that I assumed that the amendment sought to increase the compensation from one year to three years. I apologise to my noble friend, who is absolutely right. It is only logical that this amendment should be accepted, bearing in mind what we accepted at the last stage. I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will see it in that light.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government would agree that if there are to be arrangements under which dealers are compensated for loss of business—as in the Government's view there should not—it would make sense to include provision for dealers who have been in business for less than three years as well as for those who have been in business for three years or more. I see this amendment as being consequential upon Clause 17, which was inserted by your Lordships, and I do not intend to oppose it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, that is wonderful news. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 21 [No pistol club to operate without a licence]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
Page 10, line 25, after ("certificate") insert ("or visitor's firearm permit").
Page 10. line 27, after ("certificate") insert ("or permit').
Page 10, line 31, after ("certificate") insert ("or permit").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Revocation of licence]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 33:
Page 13, line 5. leave out ("surrender") and insert ("deliver").
156
Page 13, line 13, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
Page 13, line 28, leave out from ("is") to end of line and insert ("delivered into police custody in accordance with a notice under subsection (2) above").
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—

("(5A) A small-calibre pistol delivered into police custody by virtue of a notice under section 26(2) above shall not be released to any person except on the authority of the chief officer of police into whose custody it was delivered.

(5B) The holder of a firearm certificate relating to the pistol, or any other person who may lawfully have the pistol in his possession, may apply in writing to the chief officer for the release of the pistol (whether to him or to a person nominated by him).

(5C) When such an application is made the chief officer of police may require such written statements, from any person, as he considers necessary for the purpose of determining the application.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Exemptions from section 1 of the 1968 Act for officers etc. of licensed pistol clubs]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments No. 34 to 37:
Page 13, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The responsible officer of a licensed pistol club may, without holding a firearm certificate, have a small-calibre pistol or ammunition in his possession on the licensed premises of that club.").
Page 13, line 38, after ("pistol") insert ("or ammunition").
Page 13, line 39, after first ("premises") insert ("in any circumstances").
Page 13, line 41, after ("pistols") insert ("or ammunition").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may. without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 60 consecutive days, a small-calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a re-run of one which I have moved twice before. Without it, newcomers to the sport will face discouragingly high hurdles and the sport will slowly but surely die out. A cynic might suspect a hidden agenda here. In response to government concerns, my Report stage amendment very considerably tightened up on my Committee stage amendment; and, indeed, this amendment tightens up yet further on my Report stage amendment by allowing only a 60-day rather than a 90-day trial period for probationers.
Although the Government seem to indicate considerable support in principle for my amendment, last time round the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was worried about the very unlikely scenario of a beginner stealing a pistol from a pistol club. But, of course, a pistol/rifle club—and many clubs cater for both pistol and rifle shooters—can legitimately allow the beginner, minus a licence, to try a .22 rifle. He, too, could theoretically steal a pistol but I suggest that that would not only be difficult to do but that it would also, in practice, be extremely unlikely. It would in fact be easier and cheaper for him to acquire an illegal gun.
Another point which has not so far been mentioned is the fact that beginners who have gone to the trouble and the considerable expense of obtaining a firearm licence and who then find that they are not really keen on or suited to the sport will almost certainly feel, if the amendment is not agreed to, that they must, nonetheless, continue in order to get their money's worth. The net result would be many more firearm licences in existence than would otherwise be the case. It seems to me that that is probably contrary to public policy.
It is possible that the drafting of the amendment is not perfect but there is no problem in that respect because it can easily be put right in another place, as our amendments usually are. Indeed, although our amendments are often acceptable in principle, they are normally altered in another place. I must stress again that, without the amendment, the sport of pistol shooting in Britain will gradually die out over the years because beginners will be discouraged. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am surprised at this worry about pistols being stolen. Certainly, when one fires in the military—and I would imagine that it is much the same in any other performance—the firing point discipline is very strong indeed. I cannot conceive that a club would allow someone who has never shot before to go out on his own and say, "Right, have a few shots and come back when you've finished". This is just unthinkable. Therefore, the idea that beginners could steal a weapon is really going a little too far.
We know that many clubs will close because they will not be able to modernise, either for financial or various other reasons. However, it is perfectly true to say that the publicity that the Bill has given to pistol shooting will probably encourage more people to want to shoot pistols than have ever shot before. A new complex is being built in Stockton with lottery money which will cater for what may well be a huge influx of people who have suddenly become interested in pistol shooting.
It never occurred to me to go pistol shooting; indeed, I did not even know that many people liked to do so. However, I am now certainly aware of the number of people who do so and I think that it might be rather fun. In fact, I think that I might try it. I am sure that there are many other people who feel the same way. Without the facility for a beginner to start shooting with borrowed weapons and to have a go, clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the whole sport will fade away. There must be a facility for young people to take up the sport if they can until such time as they have decided that they like it and want to invest in it properly.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment. I do so because any sport, whether it be pistol shooting, golf, archery or whatever, is dependent upon the regular intake of newcomers. The amendment would enable a new member—that is, someone who is perhaps taken by the sport and wants to have a go—to shoot under the auspices of the club without having a firearm certificate. As with any beginner. he would be under the closest supervision all the time and would not be allowed to handle a pistol unsupervised. Indeed, it is ridiculous to
158
suggest that he would. What the amendment suggests is only for the good of the sport, which I hope the Government are prepared to encourage. I hope that the Government are not trying to get such clubs to close down and I trust, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will be disposed to accept the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, when the Bill first came before this House there were so many issues to be looked at that one had to select which ones it was appropriate to consider individually. At a previous stage of the proceedings I recall speaking to a similar amendment. I believe I suggested then that we ought perhaps to have three classes of certificate. The lowest class with the easiest test for the police to apply would be one which would allow the person merely to use a pistol or a rifle at a club. The intermediate class would allow the person to take the pistol or shotgun from one location to another for use and then return it to the owner. That would obviously require a slightly stiffer test by the police. Finally, the toughest test would apply to a certificate which would allow a person to own and be responsible for a weapon.
If such a system were in place, the issue of probationary membership of clubs would not be so important because the police would carry out the necessary investigations before allowing a person to go to a club and use a gun. That would allow the police to carry out certain checks, especially the PNC check which would guard against criminal involvement.
The noble Lord mentioned drafting and said that it was not necessary to draft such amendments properly. I have some difficulty in that respect because I believe that we should not wilfully send the Bill to another place with incorrect drafting. That is why we should, wherever possible, force amendments through in Committee and then tidy them up on Third Reading. We do not appear to have much appetite for pressing Divisions this evening. So I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when a similar amendment was discussed at Report stage last week it was explained that the Government had a certain degree of sympathy but, at the same time, saw some difficulties with it.
We undertook to look at the question again, and to do so with some urgency. The question is a simple but important one. It is suggested that it is difficult for would-be users of small calibre pistols for target shooting to decide whether to apply for the necessary firearm certificate before they have had a chance to carry out that activity.
They could of course make use of low-power air pistols or—under the terms of this Bill—low-power pistols powered by compressed carbon dioxide. But there are obvious differences between these and genuine small calibre target pistols. The Government accept that point and there is no need for me to go into it in any further detail.
Our concern is that there should be some form of independent verification by the police that a person is suitable before he or she is permitted to fire the first

159
shot. We have not so far been able to find a satisfactory means of achieving that, short of the checks associated with the granting of a firearm certificate. However, I undertake that we shall explore urgently with the police whether there is a workable arrangement short of full checks that would allow a chief officer to agree to a person shooting under supervision for a limited period. If we can agree a workable arrangement with the police, we may bring forward amendments to the noble Lord's amendment in another place. Therefore I shall not seek to oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
I must make clear, of course, that if a workable arrangement cannot be evolved, the Government may have to seek to reverse the amendment when the Bill returns to another place. It is therefore without prejudice to the outcome that I suggest that the House allows this amendment to go forward in order to give some time to consider the matter further and for a workable solution to be sought. If we do not accept this amendment, the other place will of course have no opportunity whatever to consider the matter further. On that basis I shall not oppose the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the time and the trouble she has taken to examine the amendment. I agree, I think for the first time during our entire consideration of the Bill, with every single word she said. I am pleased to accept her offer. I hope your Lordships will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Registers to be kept by licensed pistol clubs]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 7, after ("certificate") insert ("or visitor's firearm permit").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Penalty for false statements]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 28, at end insert ("or the release of a small-calibre pistol from police custody under section 27 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Transfers of firearms to be in person]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 43:
Page 15, line 42, at end insert ("or a visitor's firearm or shot gun permit").
Page 16. line 2, after ("certificate") insert ("or permit"). Page 16, line 6, after ("certificate") insert ("or permit").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Notification to chief officer of police of transfers involving firearms]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 16, line 17, after ("certificate") insert ("or, as the case may be, a visitor's firearm or shot gun permit").
Page 16, line 19, at end insert ("or permit").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Notification of de-activation, destruction or loss of firearms or ammunition]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 53:
Page 16, line 30, after ("relates") insert ("; or
(b) a firearm to which a visitor's firearm or shot gun permit relates,").
Page 16, line 33, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").
Page 16, line 33, at end insert ("or permit").
Page 16, line 35, after ("certificate") insert ("or a visitor's firearm permit").
Page 16, line 36, after ("certificate") insert ("or permit").
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").
Page 16, line 38, at end insert ("or permit").
Page 17, line 5, leave out from first ("1988") to first ("be").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Notification of events taking place outside Great Britain involving firearms etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Register of holders of shot gun and firearm certificates]:
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 19, line 15, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 16 and insert ("who have applied for a firearm or shot gun certificate or to whom a firearm or shot gun certificate has been granted or whose certificate has been renewed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. These three amendments seek to tidy up Clause 40 which noble Lords will remember they inserted in the Bill at Report. The new clause seeks to set up a central register of all persons holding a shotgun or firearm certificate and to have it recorded on a computer with a number to which the police have direct access.
I was extremely grateful to receive a message on Friday from my noble friend's office saying that the Government were now ready to accept the new clause and the purpose behind it. It was put to me that it needed small modifications with which I have no difficulty. I thank my noble friend for arranging for me to visit the police national computer and the PHOENIX project at Hendon this morning. I spent a most useful two-and-a-half hours with Mr. Ladley, the Hendon data centre manager, and Chief Inspector Twigg, the PHOENIX project manager.
Two things arose as a result of the meeting. First, it will be practical to introduce the register that I sought within a reasonable timescale and at a reasonable cost using the facilities at Hendon. It appears that in about six months' time when certain operations being added to the police national computer have been digested, it will be possible to start putting into operation the new national register we seek. That will probably take about six months and will cost something in the region of £350,000. I suggest a budget of half a million pounds, but that is small in relation to the cost of other provisions in the Bill. It would then probably take about six months for police forces to transfer the data which

161
each holds on to the new national register. We can expect that the new national register will be up and running by, let us say, October 1998.
Secondly, I learnt how right your Lordships were to put the new clause on the face of the Bill because there is no way in which the facilities, resources or priorities which previously existed at Hendon, and those of the Treasury, would have allowed this to happen within the reasonable timescale we seek. As your Lordships will remember, the whole object of the new register is to keep a much better check on the sort of people who are given certificates or licences for any form of firearm and to make it less likely that they are granted to unsuitable people which may lead to a further Hungerford or Dunblane. In recommending these three amendments I thank warmly those of your Lordships who spoke in favour of the measure on Report and those noble Lords on all sides of the House who voted in favour of the new clause. They have made this measure possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 to Clause 40 dealing with a central register of certificate holders. This now sets out a clear and achievable requirement for the establishment of a register. As my noble friend saw for himself during his visit earlier today to the site of the PHOENIX computer system, PHOENIX provides the police and other agencies with a sophisticated information system to support them in their tasks. The firearms register will form an important component of the system. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 19, line 20, leave out ("provide") and insert ("be kept by means of a computer which provides").
Page 19, line 20, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 23.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
APPEALS
(".—(1) For section 44 of the 1968 Act (appeals against police decisions) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Appeals against police decisions.
44.—(1) An appeal against a decision of a chief officer of police under section 28A, 29, 30A, 30B, 30C, 34, 36, 37 or 38 of this Act lies—
(a) in England and Wales, to the Crown Court; and
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff.
(2) An appeal shall be determined on the merits (and not by way of review).
(3) The court or sheriff hearing an appeal may consider any evidence or other matter, whether or not it was available when the decision of the chief officer was taken.
(4) In relation to an appeal specified in the first column of Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act, the third column shows the sheriff having jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
(5) In Schedule 5 to this Act—
162
(a) Part II shall have effect in relation to appeals to the Crown Court; and
(a) Part III shall have affect in relation to appeals to the sheriff."
(2) In Schedule 5 to the 1968 Act (provisions as to appeals), after Part II there shall be inserted—
"PART III
APPEALS IN SCOTLAND
1. An appeal to the sheriff shall be by way of summary application.
2. An application shall be made within 21 days after the date on which the appellant has received notice of the decision of the chief officer of police in respect of which the appeal is made.
3. On the hearing of the appeal the sheriff may either dismiss the appeal or give the chief officer of police such directions as he thinks fit as respects the certificate or register which is the subject of the appeal.
4. The decision of the sheriff on an appeal may be appealed only on a point of law." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 80. Both amendments deal with the important issue of appeals procedures. It is right that I should explain briefly to the House the background to the amendments which seek to lay down a procedure for appeals against various decisions by chief constables under the firearms legislation. As noble Lords will recall, Lord Cullen made a number of important observations on appeals against these decisions. I shall describe in outline what the main recommendation was and how the Government propose to respond to it.
At the outset the Government accepted Lord Cullen's recommendation that consideration be given to reform of the appeal arrangements. In the event this turned out not to be a straightforward task. Case law on appeals has developed over the years, and despite the fact that the statutory provisions for Scotland and for England and Wales are similar it has developed in different ways. Partly because of that, I suspect, Lord Cullen's report did not give a clear blueprint for action but recommended that detailed consideration be given to the matter.
The Government continued with the consideration after the announcement of their response. In December the view was reached that it was important to consult with those most knowledgeable about, and interested in, the appeals procedures, including members of the judiciary, the legal profession, the police and shooting organisations. Conscious that we were initiating consultation just before Christmas, we thought it right, despite the urgency of the matter, to give consultees approximately one month to respond. We asked for their replies by 23rd January and since then a great deal of work has gone into considering the replies and the implications arising from them for statutory change. It is a matter of regret, for which I apologise to the House, that the drafting of the amendments could not be completed in time to give your Lordships' House the normal period between the tabling of the amendments and today's debate.
Perhaps it might assist the House if I remind noble Lords that at paragraph 8.119 of his report Lord Cullen said that consideration should be given to reforming the

163
scope for appeal against decisions of the chief officer of police, by restricting it to enumerated grounds which do not trench on the exercise of his discretion.
In the course of his inquiry, Lord Cullen looked with great care at the way in which firearms appeals are currently conducted. He highlighted uncertainty in Scotland about key questions—in particular whether the sheriff on appeal could effectively hear the case afresh or whether (as had earlier been the understanding) he could only interfere with the decision of a chief officer of police if he were persuaded that it was a capricious or arbitrary exercise of his discretion. Lord Cullen also highlighted diverging approaches between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other hand, to which I have already referred.
Lord Cullen addressed the issue as to whether an appeal should amount to a rehearing of the application that had been refused or revocation of a certificate. In his report at paragraph 8.117, he said:
"It is to my mind strange that, when so much importance attaches—and rightly so—to the responsibility of the police and in particular the decision-maker, that a court of law should take on the responsibility of discharging that function in deciding an application or a question of revocation…While cases may occur in which a chief officer of police proceeds on what turns out to be incorrect information or mistaken view of the law, the core of his function is the exercise of his judgment."
At paragraph 8.119, Lord Cullen concluded that the appropriate approach was,
"to recognise the discretion of the chief officer of police, retain the courts as the avenue for appeal, and limit the scope of appeal to enumerated grounds which between them should cover the areas in which there should be room left for appeal."
Lord Cullen then drew attention to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 which contained provisions which in his view seemed to form a model for putting that approach into practice.
The initial view of the Government was that Lord Cullen's approach seemed eminently sensible. But detailed consideration of what he recommended, both in the light of the consultation which we carried out, and, more particularly, in the light of the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, revealed that we could not safely proceed in that way without risking a violation of Article 6 of the convention. Article 6(1) requires independent judicial determination when somebody's civil rights are being affected by a decision. Our view, having considered the points made in consultation, is that the procedure for decisions by the chief constable, coupled with appeal limited to the grounds recommended by Lord Cullen, would not amount to a proper compliance with Article 6(1).
We therefore had to think long and hard about what to do in the light of the conflict between Lord Cullen's favoured approach and the terms of the European convention. We have reached the view that the best way forward is to clarify the position for appeals in both Scotland and England and Wales. We have decided essentially to include on the face of the Bill arrangements under which appeals have been made in England and Wales under the existing legislation, thus removing any uncertainty which may have affected
164
appeals in Scotland. As Lord Cullen rightly said, that uncertainty was "clearly unsatisfactory". Accordingly, while we do not go as far as Lord Cullen favoured and to some extent recommended—indeed, we are not going as far as some noble Lords would have wished—in amending the appeals arrangements, I hope that chief constables having considered this clarification of the position will understand and respect it.
I turn briefly to the terms of the amendments themselves. Amendment No. 58 inserts a new clause into the Bill to give effect to the decisions that I have just described. The new clause replaces the existing Section 44 of the 1968 Act. It lists the various decisions by chief constables which can be subject to appeal under the Act. The list has been amended to include the new sections which the Bill seeks to insert into the 1968 Act. The new Section 44 restates the fact that in England and Wales appeals are made to the Crown Court and in Scotland to the sheriff. It provides that the court should hear a full appeal on the merits of the case. The chief constable will be able to take account of all information which is available to him in reaching his decision. The court will be able to take account of any evidence or other information then available whether or not it was available to the chief constable when the original decision was taken by him.
The amendment creates the necessary link to Schedule 5 to the 1968 Act which sets out the detailed arrangement for appeal procedures including which Scottish sheriff has jurisdiction to hear a particular appeal.
The new clause also inserts into Schedule 5 the necessary detailed arrangements for appeals in Scotland. The summary application procedure is to be used in appeals to the sheriff, as currently happens. It provides that appeals will be made within 21 days' notification of the decision appealed against. It also clarifies what the sheriff may do after hearing the appeal. He may either dismiss it or give the chief constable directions on the certificate or register which has been the subject of the appeal.
Appeals from the sheriff are allowed only on a point o law. Since the sheriff will have heard a full appeal on the merits of a specific case, it is unnecessary to have a further appeal except on points of law. Amendment No. 80 is a simple, consequential amendment which I need not go into.
I apologise for speaking at such length on the amendments. However, in view of the problems that the Government face in dealing with the detail of Lord Cullen's recommendation, and the importance of the matter to members of the shooting community and to chief constables, I thought it appropriate to set out a full explanation of what lies behind Amendment No. 58.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can help me. I am concerned about the use of subjective criteria for determining whether someone should or should not have a firearms licence. In the case of Thomas Hamilton, the problem for the Central Scotland Police was that they

165
had heard many what can only be described as rumours about his unsatisfactory behaviour and therefore unsuitability for a firearms licence, but they had no objective criteria. He had not committed any offences about which they knew. Therefore, they did not feel that they could refuse him a licence.
Does the amendment allow the police to refuse a firearms licence on the ground that a person is an unsavoury character? Are they able to proceed with a refusal without fear of that refusal being overturned on appeal?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the noble Earl. I had similar concerns about the ability of the chief constable to take non-conviction information into consideration. That point came out in great detail in the Cullen Report.
Will the appeal procedure reflect the ability of the chief constable to consider non-conviction information?
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, on reading this Bill and, again, the 1968 and 1988 Acts, I felt that the appeals procedure in Scotland was very weak. I am glad that the amendment has been introduced.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. At the end of his remarks, he indicated that he hoped that chief officers of police would understand the reasons why the amendment was phrased as it is. If he will forgive my saying so, that implies that their representations to the Home Office and the Scottish Office pointed the Government in a different direction. Is that true? In other words, are the police content with the way in which the Government are proceeding?
Secondly, I wish to take up a point made a few moments ago. Let us say that the police have criminal intelligence that a man who has no previous criminal convictions has an unsatisfactory personality, or that he consorts with people so as to give rise to a belief that at some stage in the future he might behave unreasonably or irrationally. Is that enough to entitle a chief officer to turn down that person's application for a firearm licence? We should be clear on these points. There is great concern in the police service to get this matter right at this stage.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the issue of objective and subjective criteria was raised in relation to this amendment. If rumours or allegations are flying about, would it not be prudent in many cases for the police to ask for a mental health check to be carried out on an individual before they satisfy themselves that he is suitable to be awarded a firearm certificate?
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not know any way in which this cannot be a subjective judgment. All judgments concerned with moral questions are in the end subjective. The argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was perfectly valid.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that the amendment has
166
attracted. To deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, police officers have been consulted on this matter, both in the Scottish association and the association covering England and Wales. I think that they will not be upset if I disclose that they would have preferred the approach that was clearly preferred by Lord Cullen although not specifically recommended by him. The implications of the European convention were explained to them. One of the reasons for my detailed explanation of what lies behind the amendment is so that everyone can understand why there has been this admitted change of tack.
I turn to the question of what information chief constables may take into account. It may not be helpful to look at the matter in terms of objective or subjective criteria. Chief constables are not restricted in any way in the information that they may take into account in deciding whether to grant an application or revoke a certificate. They are entitled to take into account the existence of criminal convictions; they are equally entitled to take into account evidence or information suggesting some aspect of an individual's character or behaviour which renders that person inappropriate either to obtain or retain a certificate. In other words, the information that chief constables have would not require to be necessarily admissible in law in a criminal or civil case for that information to be relevant to a chief constable's decision. His decision on an application before him has to be his own personal assessment based on information available to him, from wherever it came.
The import of the amendment, as opposed to the approach favoured by Lord Cullen, is that when the court comes to consider an appeal, the chief constable is required to lay all that information before the court to seek to justify his or her decision. Equally, the court is not limited, as in a criminal case, to receiving evidence or information that is admissible only if it complies with certain statutory provisions. Equally, the applicant or former holder of a certificate is not bound by the strict rules of admissibility of evidence. It is a full re-hearing, to be conducted by the Crown Court or sheriff court, taking into account any information, from whichever source, that any chief constable or applicant wishes to lay before it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. While he is on this point, will he say whether he would expect a chief constable to refuse a firearm certificate to someone solely on the grounds that that person had a driving conviction? I understand that a number of certificates have been refused on that ground. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will give the House some idea as to exactly where his mind is moving on this point.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am not prepared to suggest that driving convictions would necessarily be irrelevant to an issue that a chief constable would have to decide. It would be for each chief constable to take account of a particular conviction. If it was a comparatively trivial matter, for instance a charge of careless driving, it is unlikely that it would justify action. However, I cannot exclude that possibility since something might lie behind it. For instance, a careless

167
driving charge involving someone else which led the chief constable to believe that there was some animosity on the part of the individual and that he displayed a tendency that made him an inappropriate person to hold a firearm certificate.
It is very important that this House does not seek to limit the discretion of a chief constable as to the information and evidence of which he may take account. Parliament has laid down the decisions that have to be taken and the statutory criteria to which a chief constable must have regard. Beyond that, the matter is to be left to chief constables. I hope that those who are anxious to protect the interests of the shooting community will acknowledge that these broad appeal procedures will allow a complete and unrestricted appeal against any decision taken by a chief constable and that their interests would be adequately protected.
I should also mention the point raised by the noble Lord about medical conditions. I understand that my noble friend wrote a letter on that subject to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, dated 6th February and that a copy is in the Library or if it is not, I will ensure that a copy is placed there. The letter responds to certain points raised on Report dealing with a situation of mental illness.
Clearly it would be open to a chief constable who had a concern about that matter to ask for a medical certificate to be produced. Certain practical problems will arise in relation to that. It is no secret that some doctors have made it clear that there will be reluctance on their part to issue such certificates. However, if a doctor is prepared to do so, then no doubt such a report will be before the chief constable. If, on the other hand, the chief constable had no justification for seeking a medical report and that was the sole reason for his refusal to grant a certificate, or for revocation, then clearly the whole matter would require re-examination before the Crown Court or sheriff court. In either event I suggest that the interests of shooters would be well protected.
I am grateful for the support that these new procedures have received. I am optimistic that they will serve to promote a proper balance between the interests of public safety and of those who wish to participate in shooting.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I have one slight concern. If the police have information that was given in confidence but not anonymously, will they be able to rely upon that? Will there be any difficulty when they try to rely upon it in court?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, it is open to chief constables to rely on information which comes from any source they deem reliable and appropriate. It may be that to protect a registered informer or for some other sound operational reason a chief constable would not wish to disclose the source of that information at an appeal. A chief constable might say that he had reached the view that he was not disposed to place the information before the court. In that event it may restrict his chances of protecting the decision which he had taken and persuading the court to uphold it. But that has to be an operational matter for the chief constable.
168
I think that the House would be content that it should be left on that basis. We should not restrict chief constables by restricting the sources from which they can obtain information. But equally it must be for them to reach a decision as to whether they disclose the source or the information itself when the matter comes to an appeal.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 43 [Power of search with warrant]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 22, line 33, after ("authority") insert ("or the Corporation of the City of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Firearm certificates relating to firearms used for target shooting]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 63:
Page 23, line 6, after ("for") insert ("the grant or renewal of').
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("a").
Page 23, line 10, after ("applicant") insert ("or, as the case may be, renewed").
Page 23, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Approved rifle clubs]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 24, line 46, leave out ("as a rifle or miniature rifle club").
Page 24, line 48, at end insert—
("(3) Any approval of a rifle or miniature rifle club or muzzle-loading pistol club under section 15 of the 1988 Act which is in force immediately before the commencement of this section shall have effect as if it were an approval under section 15 of the 1988 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Coterminous pistol club licences and rifle club approvals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:
Page 25, line 4, leave out ("an approved rifle club") and insert ("approved under section 15 above").
Page 25, line 12, leave out ("as a rifle club") and insert ("under section 15 above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Financial provisions]:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 26, line 19, at end insert ("or
(b) an air pistol to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies and which is designed to fire .22 or smaller diameter ammunition;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 26, line 36, at end insert—
("(7) References in the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997 to "registered post" or "recorded delivery service" shall include facsimile telecommunications transmission of which a record is kept.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would allow the use of fax transmissions when dealers are issuing notices of transactions to customers and the police. Since some faxes do not have a system of proof of transmission, the amendment only allows the use of fax where a record is kept.
The present system is out of line with modern business practice in that it only allows dealers to use registered post or the recorded delivery service when issuing notices for transactions. That is not really appropriate nowadays, when electronic communication is such a vital part of business. The present system is also an enormous inconvenience to dealers and much less efficient than the use of a fax. For example, dealers in rural areas may have to travel miles to a post office which accepts recorded delivery. Registered post costs £3 plus postage, or £3.26 in all. But dealers normally use recorded delivery, which costs 60p plus post or 86p per notice. Dealers must also give notice to the chief officer of police who issued the certificate and so may well have to send half a dozen or more notices per day, which is unduly bureaucratic.
The use of a fax could have operational advantages because it would mean that the police would receive instant information.
For example, the use of a fax notification might well have been significant in the recent Humphrey case in which a gun was sent to an address other than that on the certificate and the police learnt of it too late.
There has been a suggestion that it is difficult adequately to define what constitutes a fax. However, BT has confirmed that "facsimile telecommunications transmission" is a proper definition. The amendment is important to the gun trade. It will save enormous cost and bureaucracy, so I commend it to your Lordships and hope that my noble friend can accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment would mean that people who are required to submit notifications to the police about transactions in firearms and ammunition would be able to do so by facsimile transmission rather than by registered post or recorded delivery. Or they could if they wished continue to use these postal methods as now.
Clauses 34 and 35 of this Bill would extend and rationalise the requirement upon shooters to notify sales, transfers and disposals of firearms and ammunition to the police. There are also important requirements upon firearms dealers, set out in Sections 42 and 43 of the Firearms Act 1968, relating to notifying the police of sales and transfers.
It would clearly be of some practical value to firearms dealers, and would also be of practical value to some owners, if these notifications could be done by fax. This
170
would echo a recommendation which was made by the Firearms Consultative Committee in its fifth annual report (1993–94).
The Government have some sympathy with this proposition. Fax messages are entirely acceptable in this day and age for routine correspondence.
But these firearms notifications do not fall into the category of routine correspondence. Failing to send them as the law requires represents a criminal offence. I fear I must report that there are important obstacles in the way of changing the law in the way my noble friend suggests.
A fax message is, of course, a copy of an original document. I regret to say that it would be quite possible for an unscrupulous individual to change the original document. They might, for instance, blank out part of the document before sending it by fax. The police, who received it, would then be quite unaware of the alteration.
The fact that a person has kept a record of having sent a particular fax would not, in law, be proof that he had sent it. Certainly there might be proof that he had sent a fax. But the important issue is what that fax contained, and there would be no proof of that.
Fax transmissions—unlike recorded delivery and registered post—are not what the law regards as provable documents. It is in the interests both of public safety—which benefits from the proper recording of firearm transactions—and of firearm owners themselves that these communications should be made in provable form, even though this might involve some minor inconvenience.
There are substantial problems standing in the way of what otherwise is a sensible idea put forward by my noble friend. I hope he will accept the difficulties and will not press his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have no intention of pressing the amendment. Inspiration has reached me from another part of your Lordships' House to the effect that police can acknowledge these documents by fax. I assume that to be so. However, it is not what the amendment was aimed at. In view of what my noble friend said, I cannot say that I am happy to withdraw the amendment; I withdraw it reluctantly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO MAKE TRANSITIONAL, CONSEQUENTIAL ETC. PROVISIONS.

(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provisions and such savings as he considers necessary or expedient in preparation for, in connection with, or in consequence of—

(a) the coming into force of any provision of this Act; or

(b) the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by a provision of this Act during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.

(2) Regulations under this section may make modifications of any enactment contained in this or in any other Act.

171

(3) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the proposed new clause would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations in order to cover such transitional and consequential provisions as he considers necessary as a result of the passing of the Bill.
We believe that such a provision is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State of the day is able to correct any unforeseen anomalies which may arise as a result of the speedy passage of the Bill. I must emphasise that this would be only a safeguarding provision and would only cover unforeseen circumstances arising from the implementation of this Bill as it relates to transitional arrangements.
The chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has been consulted about this power. He has written to confirm that he can see no reason to object to it as long as the power is confined to transitional arrangements only, which is the effect of my amendment.
It is not an unprecedented measure. For example, under the Friendly Societies Act 1992 and the Reserve Forces Act 1996, regulations made under subsection (2) must be made for the purposes authorised by subsection (1). That is in connection with or in consequence of provisions already in the Act or repealed by the Act. They cannot introduce areas of policy not addressed by the Act, nor can they be used to amend enactments unrelated to the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am concerned about the clause. It seems to me to be the most blatant form of Henry VIII clause that we have had for a long time. Earlier, in reply to my noble friend Lord Pearson, the Minister said that there was no power under the clause for him to bring about a change extending the range of guns. I find it difficult because subsection (1) of the new clause says that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provisions and such savings as he considers necessary or expedient in preparation for, in connection with, or in consequence of"—
certain matters. Subsection (2) is in no way qualified and states that:
"Regulations under this section may make modifications of any enactment contained in this or in any other Act".
My noble friend suggested that that must be limited to those provisions which are:
"transitional and consequential…and such savings as he considers necessary or expedient".
Even if that were so, it would give a tremendous range for bringing in amendments. There is no reason at all why the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Pearson should not be brought into that. Certainly it would be, "transitional and consequential"
172
and could come in under that Act. But I do not accept that subsection (2), which is in no way qualified by the "transitional and consequential provisions" and so on, does not enable:
"modifications of any enactment contained in this or in any other Act".
I ask my noble friend to give further consideration to this clause which is extremely dangerous and is offensive in so many ways by introducing a Henry VIII measure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to see a former chairman of the National Westminster Bank rise to object to something which appears to have been approved by the current chairman.
I have concerns about the amendment as well. I consulted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I think would generally be known as the Icing of Henry VIII clauses—he apologises for the fact that he has had to leave the Chamber—and he shares my concerns and those of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. In introducing the amendment, the Minister spoke about "unforeseen circumstances". The phrase "unforeseen circumstances" does not appear in the clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said, it says:
"as he considers necessary or expedient in preparation for"—
which is transitional—
"in connection with, or in consequence of … the coming into force of … this Act; or … the operation of [the Act]".
Even though I understand that subsection (2) is restricted to the provisions of subsection (1) by the phrase "under this section", there is nevertheless a lot of freedom there. For example, I put to the Minister that, if a Labour Secretary of State were to conduct an inquiry which would show him or her that there was a case for banning handguns altogether rather than exempting small calibre pistols, that would be:
"in connection with, or in consequence or
the operation of the Act and related Acts. Under this clause, could he not impose a total ban on handguns by regulation, subject only to the negative procedure? The Government should think about this amendment and consider whether it might work against their intentions as well as in support of them.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that I refer to the transitional provisions of the Child Support Act. A number of assessments were made which had statutory force and which were then overturned by transitional powers because they were unjust. There was no division against that, because it was felt that an injustice was being remedied. Nevertheless, statutory powers were being overturned by regulation in that case.
Finally, there is something very wrong about introducing a new clause to provide "transitional and consequential provisions" at Third Reading, when the Bill is in the second House. I know that the Government consulted the chairman of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. But this is a matter which ought to have been considered—I say that with due respect to its

173
eminent chairman—by the committee as a whole and reported to the House in writing, as are all other decisions.
I suspect that the right thing to do is for the clause to be agreed so that the Government can think about it and if necessary amend it when the Bill goes back to the other place. If the clause were to be rejected, there would be no "transitional or consequential provisions". I hope that the Minister, in responding to this short debate, will acknowledge the force of what has been said and indicate a willingness to look again at the wording of the new clause when the matter goes back to the other place.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is quite right to show concern about this clause, as did my noble friend Lord Boardman. We need to look at the very wide discretion given by the clause. It is not only what the Secretary of State considers "necessary", but also what he considers "expedient", which can be dealt with. It is not only:
"in preparation for … or in consequence of … the coming into force … of this Act"
but also "in connection with" it, and that is somewhat broad.
But I wish to comfort in two ways the noble Lords who expressed anxiety. The original Henry VIII clauses were complained of in quite recent years in both Houses of Parliament because they were not subject to any parliamentary control. But this provision is subject to two forms of control in your Lordships' House. First, there has to be a statutory instrument subject to annulment by Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament have that opportunity. We hope that your Lordships' House will not follow too closely the ancient custom of simply nodding approval to statutory instruments.
Secondly, thanks to the initiative of my late friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, whose departure we all so much regret, we now have the scrutiny committee of your Lordships' House to consider these matters, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and others. That is good. It already does very important work and will no doubt be vigilant as regards any measure which came before it under this proposed new clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee does not scrutinise all secondary legislation. It only scrutinises delegated powers provided for in primary legislation. This Bill, once enacted, will no longer be within the remit of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that has been its practice so far, but I understand that it does have power to draw attention to secondary legislation which seems to go too far and which seems to go beyond the powers offered by Parliament. I may be wrong about that, but such is my recollection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down
174
again, I confirm that that is so, but only for the secondary legislation which is provided for under the deregulation Bill and not generally.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, surely secondary legislation and statutory instruments are the problems of the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee.
I am grateful for the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on what we should do with this amendment; in other words, give the other place an opportunity to look at the matter. The great British public probably thought that the Government had presented to Parliament a properly drafted Bill which would not have such minefields and loopholes. The noble Baroness practically admitted that the Bill will contain them.
We have not made the Bill very much more complicated by our amendments, because not many of them were carried. My main concern is not with the little difficulties that may occur and the need for transitional and consequential provisions. The real problem will occur when we find that there is a huge loophole which can only be corrected by primary legislation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to say only a few words on this matter. My conclusion is exactly the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I believe that it would he wrong of us to reject the amendment because were that to happen the matter could not be considered by the other place when it reviews the amendments made by this House.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I profoundly regret the fact that the amendment was tabled for consideration only at Third Reading. I too have the highest regard for the chairman of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, but this matter should have been reviewed by the committee and could have been if the amendment had been tabled earlier. Having said that, I repeat that I am not opposed to the amendment because I think transitional provisions are necessary, but I regret the fact that it has been put down so late.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether I can take very slight issue with something that my noble friend Lord Renton said when he suggested that your Lordships' House would be able to have a proper look at anything that the Secretary of State might dream up over the next few years under this clause. There is a very unfortunate tradition that we do not vote on instruments of that kind, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in a recent debate achieved the unanimous consent of the House that we could. I am not sure it is such a very ancient tradition. My understanding is that it is a tradition which came in for the convenience of the Whips in 1979. I think it is high time it was removed; but that is not the object of my intervention on this occasion.
Subsection (2) of this unfortunate clause says
"regulations under this section may make modifications of any enactment contained in this or in any other Act",

175
a point made by my noble friend Lord Boardman. Can I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to concentrate on the words "in any other Act"? What other Acts do the Government have in mind?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is a very important amendment and I intend to say a few words about it. I am extremely suspicious of an amendment which comes before us at the end of a Bill which has been through the House of Commons and through all its stages in this House.
I am suspicious of it for two reasons. First, it seems to show that this Bill, as so many of us have said, has been drafted in haste. In other words, it has not been properly thought out. Had it been properly thought out and had this clause been necessary, then it would have been in the original Bill. But here we find, at the end of what the Government say is a well thought out Bill, a very important clause which clearly had not been thought of at the beginning nor at any stage in its passage through the House of Commons or in this House.
As has already been said by a number of people, the clause is not subject to the affirmative procedure, it is subject to annulment. Anybody who has been in the House of Commons knows perfectly well that it is very difficult to have a debate on this procedure. It is necessary either for the Opposition Front Bench to be in favour of any move to annul or for there to be a considerable number of signatures on the Order Paper. That, again, is why I am suspicious of this particular procedure.
On this occasion I will take the advice of my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I notice he is aghast at that, but it is nice to conclude the Bill on the basis that for the first time during its passage I am able to accept his advice. I hope it will prove to be very sound and will be taken by the House of Commons.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first I apologise unreservedly for the bringing forward of this amendment so late in the Bill. Can I also say to all noble Lords who have expressed concerns—my noble friend Lord Boardman and noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others—that I understand them, certainly in the context in which they have been expressed by the noble Lords. I hope in a few minutes to be able to allay some of those fears. I should like to accept the advice proffered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this instance that we pass this amendment today because I believe there are good reasons for it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has hinted that he believes so too. I can give an assurance that we shall continue to talk with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who is the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, and I shall ask my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to continue to give thought to this to ensure that all the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this House are addressed and, if necessary, that the wording may be changed in another place, although I believe at this moment that that will not be necessary.
176
A very real constraint is that subsection (2), if read as a free standing subsection is worrying, but it is limited to transitional or consequential matters because of what it says in subsection (1). It cannot be read in isolation from subsection (1). My noble friend Lord Pearson was also concerned about the use of Subsection (2). It would only refer to any other enactment in so far as it affects the transitional arrangements and consequences of implementing the measures of this Act—that would be the constraint—and the measures as set out in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Renton offered two reasons why he thought people should feel less worried about this. But I proffer to my noble friend a third reason. The constraint is that the exercise of this power must arise from transitional arrangements and consequences of implementing the measures which are determined in the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the amendment would not allow the purpose of the Bill to be changed. Regulations have to be consequential and they have to be transitional. If I can give examples: transitional arrangements for establishing a new licence to pistol clubs; or the change from the old to the new requirement for a firearm certificate.
My noble friend Lord Renton was right when he made the point that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments also scrutinises all delegated legislation to ensure that very point—that the powers are not abused. Therefore, if there was any hint whatsoever of a future Secretary of State wishing to use his powers rather more widely than they are set out in this amendment, that would be considered an abuse of the Secretary of State's powers and that would be reported to both Houses. So I believe all the safeguards are there. If I could read from a section of the letter which I received, signed by Dr. Tudor on behalf of my noble friend Lord Alexander,
"The Chairman has, however, asked me to say that the Committee's report on the Bill (a copy of which I attach) drew attention to the absence of any transitional provision in relation to what was then Clause 17 of the Bill. (That clause has of course now been amended in a way which would meet the Committee's specific concern.) In the light of the Committee's earlier concern"—
this is important—
"and provided that the new power is limited to transitional and consequential provisions, the Chairman sees no reason to object to the amendment which you [i.e. the Government] propose. He also considers that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate".
The amendment is here. The power is there for the Secretary of State so that when the transitional arrangements are made if there is some point that has not been foreseen it would be possible for the Secretary of State to have a remedy to put it right—and the power of course would have to be consistent with transitional arrangements—rather than hold up a scheme where he would have to wait for amendment of primary legislation in order to act.
I hope with those assurances, and taking the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that this House passes this measure. We will continue to look very carefully at it and at what has been said about it in this place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transitional arrangements for small-calibre pistols]:
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 77:
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("purchased or acquired") and insert ("contracted to acquire").
Page 28, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to a pistol which a person has (before the appointed day) contracted to acquire if it is delivered to any designated police station as soon as reasonably practicable after it comes into his possession.").
Page 28, line 36, leave out ("at a designated police station") and insert ("in police custody").
Page 28, line 38, after ("station") insert ("to which it was delivered under paragraph 2 above").
Page 28, line 40, leave out from ("writing") to end of line 41 and insert ("for the release of the pistol to the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station to which it was delivered under paragraph 2 above is situated").
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("which is").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 81:
Page 30, line 41, leave out ("32(2)").
Page 32, leave out line 15 and insert ("information comprised in that register in a visible and legible form)"; and").
Page 32, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Page 33, line 28, at end insert—
(" 21. In section 22(1)(c) (firearms consultative committee), for the words "the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997" .").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. The first anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy will be in four weeks' time. On 13th March 1996 Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in that town and fired 105 rounds of ammunition killing 16 children and their teacher and wounding a number of others. He had with him four high calibre handguns and 743 rounds, all of which he was legally entitled to hold. Lord Cullen's inquiry into the incident produced 23 recommendations on the control of firearms, which the Government have accepted, and one recommendation restricting the availability of self-loading handguns. Twelve of the recommendations are being implemented by administrative means; the remaining 11 are included in the Bill.
Recommendation 22 invited the Government to consult with interested groups about the proposal by the Association of Police Surgeons that a forensic medical examiner might consider the medical history of a person applying for a firearm certificate, that history having been provided by the applicant's doctor.
178
We have duly consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers, the BMA and the British Shooting Sports Council, but none has given any support for it. Indeed, they have drawn attention to various practical or ethical difficulties. The Association of Police Surgeons has since withdrawn its proposals in the light of the lack of support from other parts of the medical profession. In the light of those responses we do not propose to take the matter further. I am grateful to the Association of Police Surgeons for its contribution to the general concerns that Lord Cullen addressed.
Turning to the subject of disassembly which now forms the new Clause 10 of the Bill, Lord Cullen, in his recommendation 24, invited the Government to consider the separate storage of component parts of handguns. This was debated at great length in the House, and the technical arguments for and against disassembly have been well rehearsed. The Government remain unconvinced that disassembly would provide sufficient assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual. The issue will be re-examined in another place.
Two clauses, Clauses 17 and 19, have been added to extend the compensation arrangements beyond the Government's commitment to compensate people for their surrendered prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment. The impact of those amendments will also need to be re-examined in another place.
The Bill is an important further step in providing the public with reassurances about the presence of handguns in the community. It will ban high calibre handguns and will introduce tight controls over the procurement, ownership, storage, use and disposal of the small calibre pistols that may continue to be used for the sport of target shooting.
The Government have an onerous duty to consider the extent of the controls necessary on the ownership and possession of handguns. Taking account of Lord Cullen's findings, we have set out in the Bill the way in which the Government believe that his objective of strict control on access to handguns can most effectively be achieved. As a result of today's debates, there will be further consideration of the issue of a probationary period of membership of clubs which was raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
During the passage of the Bill I have been sustained and helped greatly by my noble friends, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay but also my noble friend Lord Courtown who has worn out much shoe leather to-ing and fro-ing energetically on my behalf, and by the good humour which characterises our debates. My thanks go to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for their courtesy throughout the debates on the Bill. The Government have been guided throughout the consideration of the Bill by the need to provide the public with the necessary protection it deserves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is customary for the principal Opposition spokesman to speak first on these occasions, but really I do not consider myself to have been the principal Opposition spokesman. As the House and the country know, we in the Labour Party have been enthusiastic supporters of the Bill. We believe that, fundamentally, the balance has to be made between everything that can possibly be done to protect public safety, not just in the light of the terrible events of Dunblane but in the light of experience over many years in many countries of the dangers of too free an availability of handguns and the dangers of homicide, with the relatively free availability of handguns. We believe that the balance has to be drawn on the side of public safety.
We disagreed on the question of a total ban on small calibre pistols but I believe that it is not a fundamental disagreement. I share the view of those who are more opposed to the Bill than I am that in practice a large number of .22 weapons will not survive because there will not be suitably secure gun clubs for them. The Minister referred to the regulations for the procurement, ownership, storage, use and disposal of small calibre pistols. That emphasises the complications into which the Government have got themselves by rejecting the total ban which we proposed.
We have had a free vote on the matter. My noble friend Lord Stoddart has been doughty in his root and branch opposition to the Bill and has had some modest support from our Benches. However, I think the Government will recognise that, on the whole, my noble friends have followed my advice—it was no more than that—and have sustained the Government, whenever possible, in the Division Lobby. It has only caused some shock to some of my noble friends that even when we vote with the Government we still lose. But perhaps that is a unique and unfortunate experience.
We wish the Bill well. We sincerely hope that if and when another place rejects the amendments which have been carried against the Government that is the last we shall hear of it and that there will be no last ditch attempt to weaken the provisions of the Bill. If there were, it would call into question the composition as well as the powers of this House.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as someone who lives a few miles from Dunblane I came down here to represent the view that we are fed up with handguns and want no more to do with them. I came here to seek a complete ban and to ally that with fair compensation. What have we achieved? We have certainly achieved a partial ban and we appear to have achieved fair compensation, although there is a threat that it may be withdrawn.
It is important that by 13th March whatever Bill we are going to have should be on the statute book. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for their forbearance
180
during the passage of this difficult Bill when they were being encouraged by people like me to go one way and by their noble friends to go the other way. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Renton: My Lords, many years ago I piloted through Parliament a short firearms Act. I therefore wish to say a few words on the Bill. That Act created a new offence of possessing a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. This Bill seems a very big but logical sequel. Although the Government have had to rush the Bill through and although it will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money in compensation, they deserve credit, as do those members of the Opposition who have supported it, for the broad intention behind it. I know that it goes much further than was expected, but we should remember that firearms legislation has always been difficult to enforce.
I know from my own long experience that the police and magistrates have always done their best to enforce the law, but there have always been illegally held firearms of various kinds in the hands of dangerous people. As a result, lives have been taken not only on the scale of Hungerford and Dunblane but in the course of many burglaries and other violent crimes.
By greatly reducing the total number of firearms in circulation, this Bill should substantially reduce the number of lives lost by the aggressive use of firearms. But that depends on enforcement. The police will need the co-operation of the public, especially those members of it who have written to us in such large numbers about this Bill.
I conclude by saying two things. I have no hope of finding time—I do not suppose other noble Lords will, either—to reply to the vast number of letters I have received. I hope that we will be forgiven for that. This is a difficult Bill technically and it is also controversial. My noble friend Lady Blatch deserves great credit for her achievement in piloting this Bill.
Earl Peel: My Lords, this has not been an easy Bill for any of us, least of all for the Government and in particular for my noble friend. I reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord Renton.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he found that there was not a fundamental disagreement between himself and my noble friend. I find that quite astonishing. There is an enormous difference between what the noble Lord and his party have been saying about this Bill and what my noble friend and this side of the House have been saying. If the noble Lord's ideas had been implemented there would have been no .22 rimfire shooting whatsoever and a great swathe of people would have been prevented from participating in a sport which, under this Bill, at least they will still be allowed to enjoy. That is a very important point.
The next point is the question of disassembly. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Swansea tabled an amendment which would have referred disassembly to a Select Committee. We debated that matter and it was suggested that that

181
would not be an appropriate course of action. My noble friend did not divide the Committee on that amendment and accepted the advice that he had been given. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that she thought it quite appropriate that this House should discuss very carefully the question of disassembly and that we were qualified and competent to deal with the matter.
I am sure that noble Lords will recall that we discussed the issue twice, once at Committee stage and again at Report stage. Ultimately, my noble friend Lord Pearson divided the House and his amendment was carried. So I say to my noble friend that we did look very carefully at the issues, debated and voted on them. The amendment was carried. I hope that the message will go to the other place loud and clear.
I moved an amendment and divided the House on the question of a firearms control board, but I was not successful. But there was one very important point about which I expressed my concern at the time, and I am still concerned about it. It is the question of a fair and competent means by which the police will assess whether an applicant is an appropriate person to receive a licence. I was extremely disappointed by the response I received from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
I say to the Government now, please ensure that we have a fairer and more competent system. I say that because we must ensure that wherever possible we reduce the possibility of another Dunblane. Unless that matter is looked at seriously there is a danger—there is always a danger. We must reduce the possibility of another Dunblane and that is one sure way of doing it.
Perhaps I may make reference to comments which have been made in this House and elsewhere on the role that hereditary Peers have played in this particular Bill. If one analyses the voting patterns, it is interesting to note that without the support of Labour Peers—in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, whose contribution has been quite extraordinary—and also the support of the Liberal Democrat Peers, the amendments on compensation would never have been carried. So it is not just a question of the involvement of hereditary Peers because the mathematics show quite clearly that Labour and Liberal Democratic Peers helped to carry those amendments. The Labour Party complains when the Government win with the help of the hereditary Peers; now they must accept the fact that the Government have lost with the help of the hereditary Peers.
I believe that this House has done itself a service. It has looked at this Bill very carefully and the strength and independence of this House have come through. We have done our job properly and I hope that that will he reflected.
I finish simply by saying to my noble friend yet again how grateful I am for all the help that she has given me personally on this Bill, difficult though it has been.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships' House has done excellent work with this Bill. We were told that we would be damned if we did something with
182
it and that we would be damned if we did not. Personally, I would rather be damned for doing something than to be damned for not doing anything at all.
The Bill came to us in a completely impractical and unworkable form, but our relaxed procedures have allowed us to work on it and to improve it in many ways. As I have previously observed, the Bill, as originally drafted, would have practically eliminated the sport of target pistol shooting while providing a negligible increase in public safety. I therefore take issue with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not believe that the Bill does very much to improve public safety. However, with our amendments, the Bill will not now be quite so draconian.
This House is blessed with many highly regarded Ministers, and the noble Baroness is no exception. We have given her a terrible time: our intellectual challenges were hard to resist and many of them were accepted by the House. However, I believe that it is extremely unfair on the noble Baroness and her department to have to pilot several very difficult Bills through this House at the same time. As a result I sometimes wonder whether Home Office Ministers generally have as good an understanding of specific issues as they might. That observation applies not only to this Bill but just as much to others.
We have successfully provided for the disassembly of .22 pistols which, as well as allowing some sport to continue, will increase public safety. However, another place has now been given the opportunity to strike a balance between the cost of compensation if it does not open up our disassembly amendment and the perceived risk to public safety if it does. I contend that the increased risk to public safety—if there is one at all—is negligible in comparison with the risks from other types of guns and illegal weapons.
We remember the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the success that he had with his amendment concerning information technology and databases. After all, we are here because one police force totally failed to administer properly the firearms law within its area. It is unfortunate that we did not make much progress with the control board amendment, especially when the Government's argument was so weak.
We have improved the compensation arrangements which provide some comfort to those who will be penalised under the Bill. I am not sure for how long those amendments will last in another place, especially in view of the comments of the noble Baroness. Attention has been focused on pistols, but one of my concerns is that the greater danger lies with shotguns. We have not even finished all the stages of this Bill, and yet last weekend in New Zealand there was a disaster in which six people were killed with a shotgun.
Despite our best efforts the Bill has problems. For example, as part of the knee-jerk reaction expanding bullets were identified as a problem and were banned. Unfortunately, my technical advisers, who are as good as those of the Minister, tell me that this policy gives

183
rise to a problem. An expanding bullet will not penetrate a policeman's body armour; it will first disintegrate. However, a high velocity jacketed bullet is very likely to penetrate body armour. One also knows that the legislation is full of loopholes, ambiguities and anomalies. This branch of the law has acquired a Byzantine complexity. Even worse, some of the provisions are open to challenge in Europe. The amendments agreed to at Third Reading may help to deal with minor matters, but there are big loopholes in relation to major matters and primary legislation will be required. I am sure that the Bill will encounter big problems.
We have been subjected to press comment that we represent no one but ourselves, but it is apparent from a recent MORI poll that public opinion is evenly divided. Over 1,000 people were asked whether they would still support the change in the law if each taxpayer had to pay £40 to fund it. Forty eight per cent. responded that they would support the Bill and 47 per cent. said that they would not. Five per cent. said that they did not know. It is hard to understand how the Bill's extremely poor cost benefit analysis can be justified.
As to the future of the Bill, I would be content to accept any message from the other place with one very important proviso. The other place must properly debate our amendments when they do not infringe its privilege on money matters. I do not say that because of the gentle threat that emanated from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but because we must concentrate the minds of the other place and not allow it to dodge the issue. It must decide the matter for itself.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the courtesy with which this debate has been carried out. That is true. With her patience she has been instrumental in bringing that about. I am sure that all of us who have taken part in the debate will thank her for that. It is remarkable that the debate has been so good natured. We have been talking not only about the loss of a sport enjoyed by tens of thousands of people but also the livelihoods of many thousands of people who are employed in this activity. Bearing in mind those facts, the House is to be congratulated on discussing this Bill in such a calm and good-humoured way. It says a lot for the House and its procedures that it has been able to do so.
Two thousand five hundred years ago Pericles said that the worst thing to do was to rush into action before the consequences had been properly debated. That wise dictum was ignored by Her Majesty's Government. As a result, in my view we have a thoroughly bad Bill. Why do I say that? Following Dunblane, the Government set up the Cullen Inquiry to examine what had happened and what was to be done. But they refused to allow this House, another place or the country to debate that Bill. That was where the mistake arose. For that reason the Government would have been much wiser to follow the dictum of Pericles. They could have had a widespread debate in Parliament and out in the country before action was taken to draft the Bill. The Government acted before the consequences had been properly debated
184
without a proper opportunity for consultation with those affected, let alone to receive representations from those affected, in the light of the Cullen Report and the public and parliamentary debate that should have taken place on it. Statesmanship demands careful consideration of the effects of action, including legislative action. Failure to understand that gives rise to very baleful consequences and often grave injustice. That is precisely what has happened in the case of this Bill.
The death toll and the manner of the killings in Dunblane were dreadful. It was a dreadful tragedy. But we must return again and again to a point that has been made so often in this debate and elsewhere: it was the action of a madman that killed those poor little children and their teacher. Guns were merely the instrument. On 16th December I said that 26 children were killed and 500 injured every month on the roads. I should like to develop that. Since the 16th December when this Bill was debated on Second Reading 500 people have been killed and 8,500 people have been injured on the roads. In spite of that the Government are considering increasing the weight of lorries from 38 to 44 tonnes. That will not decrease but increase deaths on the road. The Government should consider that very seriously. What they are saying is that whereas in one instance where innocent people are killed they will take such action as they believe will prevent it, in another instance they will take action that will exacerbate it.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill. I hope that the Commons will take note of what has been done in this House, which has undoubtedly improved the Bill. But I say to those who will be affected—like other noble Lords, I have received hundreds of letters to which I cannot reply but for which I am extremely grateful—that a Bill that is passed into law can also he repealed. So when they feel, as they will feel, a continued injustice, they should not lie down under that injustice, they should continue to fight against it until they can have it put right. That is what parliamentary government is all about. They, like other people, should fight their corner; and, eventually, if they are right, they will prove their point. My confidence in democracy is such that I believe that in the end they will win.
7 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, reminded us that our House is a revising Chamber. We have done our best through the passage of the Bill to make it a bit more comfortable to live with, although we have not been able to stop the main thrust of the Bill. We are grateful to the Government for having taken note of the points that have been raised at previous stages. I must express my appreciation to my noble friend the Minister for the nice and charming way in which she has dealt with the Bill. I do not blame her for the Bill. She was only doing what she was told to do by her superiors. The advice she was given was often wrong in our eyes, but she did very well.
That does not alter the fact that this is a thoroughly bad Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. It will not improve public safety one iota. If the Government and the Opposition want to improve public safety, they had better turn their attention to the vast reservoir of

185
weapons held illegally by the criminal element. Public safety would be improved if that were eliminated. To take these weapons out of the hands of law abiding people and to destroy them, to deprive them of their recreation, and to ruin our chances in international competition, is a different matter altogether. That is what the Government have done in the Bill. I shall end now as I ended my speech on Second Reading: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch said two rather interesting things in her opening remarks when she suggested that the Bill should now pass. First, she said that the Government remain unconvinced about the disassembly or segregation amendments that your Lordships passed. I have to say that I think she really meant that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is unconvinced. I fear that the Cabinet is guilty of giving in to his special pleading. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister to suggest to her right honourable friends in the Cabinet that when they come to consider our amendments, they must deal with the fact that the public is much safer under our disassembly amendment with guns segregated, than they will be with arsenals of weapons all over the country.
That is why I find another thing my noble friend said strange. She said that the Bill would provide the public with the reassurance that it deserves. This Bill should not provide any such reassurance. I cannot see why it is likely to save a single life; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and other noble Lords have said, it will ruin thousands of small businesses; it will deprive thousands of people of their hobby; and, worst of all, I fear that it certainly will not prevent another Dunblane. I say that because—to repeat—it penalises the instrument used in that terrible tragedy, but that instrument was not its cause.
This Bill does little new for the cause, it will merely tighten up the existing procedures which failed at Dunblane with such tragic results. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the Labour Party supports the Bill. So I have another question for the Minister which I should be grateful if she would pass on to her right honourable friends in the Cabinet. When will they come to realise that when they carry legislation in your Lordships' House with the support of the Benches opposite, they are likely to be wrong?
Lord Mottistone: Certainly.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, certainly. In my brief six years' experience, it is certainly. Of course my sympathy goes out to my noble friend the Minister. She has done her courteous best with an extremely bad Bill. For myself, I have to confess to a feeling of shame for having had anything at all to do with it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, enlarge briefly upon a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Not only did the support of noble Lords on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches enable us to win the compensation amendment, without the support
186
of courageous Labour Peers, Liberal Democrats, and a right reverend Prelate, we should not have won the disassembly amendment either. Perhaps I, too, may pay tribute to the noble Baroness the Minister for her patience, stamina, good humour and willingness to listen carefully to opposing points of view, even if ultimately those opposing points of view were rarely accommodated. That is not to say that we are not extremely grateful for the rare concessions made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, reminded us, it is a bad Bill. The overwhelming feeling in the House at Second Reading, and not only in the House, was that it was a bad Bill for many reasons already set out by a number of noble Lords. The amendments passed by your Lordships make it a somewhat less bad Bill. I trust that common sense and a sense of fair play will prevail in the other place when the Bill returns to it, and that our amendments will be accepted. I said common sense and a sense of fair play: common sense, because disassembly is a safer option as well as being cheaper for the taxpayer.
Mass produced repeating pistols have been around for about 140 years (five generations). From that, one can calculate that the statistical chances of being murdered by a psychopath with a legally held pistol are already thankfully extremely low at about 15 million:1. The Bill as drafted might reduce that to, let us say, 20 million:1, but disassembly, I submit, might very well reduce it substantially further to 30 million:1, given that there would then be no complete fully assembled legal pistols to steal.
Now to the question of fair play which in this context means fair compensation for clubs, associations and businesses. It has been argued that where businesses lose money because of some vital new safety consideration, compensation is not normally paid. But in reality the Bill has very little to do with public safety and everything to do with public relations. It could be compared with the slaughter, without any scientific justification, of hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy British cattle, not for genuine safety reasons but in order to appease hypochondriac German and other continental consumers. Generous compensation has rightly been granted not just to dairy farmers and those with beef herds but to others such as renderers. One trusts that the other place will agree, in logic and fairness, that the same principle should apply to gun clubs, dealers and manufacturers.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to add just one or two further points. First, whatever decision another place comes to, I hope that we, too, will agree to it. I should not like the Bill, through some disagreement between the two Houses, to fail. That would be a disaster. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for all the courtesy that she has shown to me during the course of the Bill. I have one last request, but I do not know how it can be done. If the Bill becomes an Act, would it be possible for this Government or the next government to consider consolidating the legislation from 1968 right up to date, because there is

187
hardly one section in any Act that has not been amended? It is extremely difficult to follow the technicalities of what the law is supposed to be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall answer two questions. Yes, we will consider consolidation. That was an important point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour. Secondly, I say to my noble friend Lord Pearson that all Members in another place will read with interest what has been said today. I always report back to my right honourable friend at the conclusion of the passage of any Bill with which I am involved.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. One of the primary obligations of any government is to protect the public. This Bill seeks to fulfil that obligation in addition to other important objectives. Its key provisions are informed by a number of important considerations: first, the principle that individuals and communities should have the confidence to say no to serious crime; secondly, the conviction that serious crime, particularly when it is committed by those who have offended before, should meet with serious punishment; and thirdly, the belief that the people of Scotland will more readily understand, respect and support their criminal justice system if the sentences served by those convicted of serious crime correspond directly with the sentences actually imposed by the courts.
Against that background, there can be no doubt as to the importance of the Bill. Its key proposals were contained in the White Paper Crime and Punishment published in June last year. It was the subject of detailed comment by many individuals and organisations, including two noble Lords who are to participate in today's debate. The proposals have since received extensive and detailed scrutiny in another place from where the Bill emerged the better for some useful amendments proposed from all sides. However, it is important for your Lordships to be aware that in another place none of the key proposals in the Bill was the subject of sustained opposition. Indeed, on Third Reading the Bill had a majority of 287.
I look forward to equally useful discussion in this House, and I hope that the Bill will pass on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
I now outline some of the major provisions in the Bill. Many of them relate to sentencing. They demonstrate the Government's determination to keep the statutory framework for sentencing under review and to provide the courts with appropriate powers to deal with those who repeatedly commit serious crimes, whether they be violent or sex offences or drug trafficking offences.
188
Clause 1 deals with automatic life sentences. It provides that where an offender is convicted in the High Court on a second occasion of violent or serious sexual crime, the sentence to be imposed should be an automatic life sentence. The Government consider that there are occasions when such a sentence is the only appropriate sentence. These occasions arise when an offender is convicted in the High Court of a violent or serious sexual offence having previously been convicted in the High Court for a similar offence. Individuals who are convicted more than once in the High Court of such offences clearly pose a serious risk to society—a risk that can remain when they come to the end of a determinate sentence. The Government's proposals will reduce the chances of such individuals causing further serious harm to other members of the society in which they live.
It is important for your Lordships to be aware that both convictions require to be High Court convictions before an automatic life sentence falls to be imposed. When offenders aged 18 acquire such convictions automatic life sentences will follow unless the High Court judge is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify his not passing such a sentence. However, it is important that your Lordships are aware that the High Court judge will continue to set the part of the sentence that represents punishment and deterrence. This period will be known as the designated period. It will be spent in custody before release can be considered on the grounds of public safety and is entirely at the discretion of the sentencing judge. High Court judges will still require to exercise judicial discretion even when the automatic life sentence provisions apply.
Clause 2 includes provisions laying down minimum sentences of at least seven years for those with two convictions for a Class A drug trafficking offence who are then convicted in the High Court of a further Class A drug trafficking offence. The gravity of the criminal conduct of those who traffic repeatedly in Class A drugs cannot be exaggerated. It is for that reason that the Government consider that such a mandatory minimum sentence is called for. As with automatic life sentences, the High Court judge will be able to impose a lesser determinate sentence if there are exceptional circumstances which would justify taking such a course of action.
I turn to the provisions which increase sentencing powers in the sheriff court. In order to operate an effective criminal justice system we must ensure that the courts are equipped to hand down the most appropriate disposal in each case and that there is sufficient flexibility in the court system. The current maximum period is three years for sheriff and jury trials. That is subject to the power of the sentencing sheriff to remit to the High Court for sentence. In sheriff summary courts the maximum is three months, although where second and subsequent offences inferring personal violence or dishonest appropriation of property are concerned, the courts may impose a maximum of six months. In the district court, the maximum is lower and is restricted to 60 days.

189
The Government make no apology for keeping the sentencing powers of the different courts under review. The sentencing powers of the sheriff sitting as the solemn sheriff in a jury court was increased in 1988 from two to three years. In 1994, after further consultation, it was concluded that, in the absence of a system of sentencing guidelines, it would be better to concentrate instead on seeking to have more cases tried in the sheriff solemn court. But things have changed since then. Business has increased in both the High Court and the sheriff solemn courts and the number of remits for sentence from sheriff solemn court to the High Court has also increased. Crucially, and importantly, the High Court has now acquired express statutory powers to issue sentencing guidelines, which are required to be followed by High Court judges and sheriffs.
Clause 12 therefore provides for the maximum period of imprisonment which certain courts can impose to be increased to five years in sheriff and jury trials and six months in sheriff summary, with up to 12 months for relevant second and subsequent offences. There would be no change in the powers of the lay justices in the district court. These are designed to be practical steps which respond to evidence available to the Government to the effect that the sheriff court could function better with extended powers. More serious cases can he tried locally in the sheriff court which could result in such cases being dealt with more speedily. Greater flexibility should also help relieve pressure on the system and enable the sheriff courts to determine the most appropriate sentence for the cases before them without as much need to remit to the High Court for sentence.
It is important to remember that the Bill is not just about prison sentences; its proposals must be seen as an overall package. It may be helpful if I make reference to some of the other provisions that affect the sentencing powers of the courts. Clause 3 deals with supervision on release from custody. It enables the court to impose a supervised release order of between three months and two years, or 25 per cent. of sentence (whichever is greater) on any offender receiving a determinate sentence where the court considers it necessary for the protection of the public. Equally, such orders are available and must be imposed where the offender is convicted of a qualifying offence for the purposes of the automatic life sentence provisions. The new provisions will allow resources to be targeted on those judged a risk to society and will assist all of us in doing our utmost to stop such offenders reoffending.
The Bill also makes provisions relating to restriction of liberty orders. While we are determined that courts should deal firmly with serious offenders, we are equally determined that less serious offenders, particularly younger ones, should not be given custody for want of suitable community based disposals. For that reason, Clause 4 provides a further disposal for the courts which will provide an alternative to custody. It will be called a restriction of liberty order. We envisage that such orders will be remotely monitored by the use of electronic tags. A restriction of liberty order will allow a court to restrict an offender's movements to
190
such extent as the court thinks fit having regard to the circumstances of the offender and the particular offence of which he has been convicted.
I deal now with the appeal procedures which are set out in Part III. The Sutherland Committee, which examined the issue of criminal appeals and miscarriage of justice procedures, published its report in June last year and recommended among other things that an independent review body should be established in Scotland to examine claims that miscarriages of justice had occurred.
It is important when considering this matter to remember the particular circumstances which exist in Scotland. Unlike in England, we have happily not had the widely publicised cases involving miscarriages of justice which have led to the setting up in England of the new Criminal Cases Review Commission. The evidence which the Sutherland Committee received on this topic was divided on the need for an independent body in Scotland. Moreover the terms of the committee's report did not demonstrate any overwhelming pressure or compelling case for fundamentally changing our machinery for reviewing the miscarriage of justice allegations. For those reasons the Government were not convinced that they should accept that recommendation.
On a reading of the report it is clear that the committee's main concerns were with the appeals criteria. We believe that our acceptance of almost all of its recommendations should effectively address the main concerns about miscarriages of justice in Scotland. Those provisions are to be found in Part II of the Bill.
I turn now to deal with the early release of convicted prisoners, which is dealt with in Part IV. Public confidence is crucial in maintaining the integrity of our criminal justice system. If the courts, when imposing sentence, are seen to be doing one thing while administrative arrangements for implementing their sentences produce another, it is little wonder that the public is at best confused and on occasion disillusioned and cynical. Lord Ross, who recently retired as Lord Justice Clerk, in response to the consultation paper, said that,
"under the arrangements for early release of prisoners which presently exist, I regard myself when imposing sentence as taking part in something in the nature of a charade".
The 1993 Act allowed prisoners a generous margin of early release—up to one half of sentence which could be achieved without any substantial effort on the part of the prisoners concerned. Over recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the public neither understand nor accept why this should be. That flows naturally from the comment which Lord Ross deemed it appropriate to make in public. The lack of understanding may have contributed to some of the public criticism in the media which members of the judiciary have had to bear in recent years.
For those reasons, we now propose to give full effect and respect to the sentences handed down by the courts. The proposals in the Bill will dispel the idea that early release is something in the nature of a right. The public believe that it should not be that—and the Bill seeks to meet that concern.

191
The Bill provides that prisoners will spend a greater proportion of their sentence in custody and will not be able to commit new offences against the public as too many of those given early release in the past have done. The Government believe that this represents the best possible protection for the public. The Bill makes it clear that prisoners will have to earn any measure of early release. There will therefore be a new incentive for prisoners to co-operate with programmes designed to address offending behaviour, something that does not exist under the 1993 Act. Early release provisions will reduce that to the minimum consistent with maintaining good order in prisons.
We believe that a margin of earned early release, following the scheme set out in the Bill of 12 days in every two months, should be retained to provide an incentive to ensure that control can be maintained in prisons and, equally importantly, to encourage prisoners to make a positive effort to address their offending behaviour. In practice, remission of up to one-sixth of a sentence can be earned through good behaviour in prison and, equally importantly, through participation in programmes designed to help offenders to tackle their offending behaviour.
Some who have commented on the Government's proposals question what effect they may have on the behaviour of prisoners while they remain in prison. The Government believe that the proposals I have outlined will provide a crucial incentive to maintain good behaviour in prison. Prisoners will be encouraged not only to keep out of trouble but to participate in programmes designed to enable them to address the problems they may face when trying to behave themselves in society. However, it will still be possible for days of earned early release to be forfeited if disciplinary offences occur. In that way, "additional days" can be added to the sentence in the same way as applies at the moment. The Government therefore believe that, with such additional resources as the Bill's provisions may give rise to, the Scottish Prison Service will be able to maintain and indeed improve on the necessary discipline in our prisons.
In Part IV the Bill addresses the important issue of legal aid. There is widespread support for the view that the costs of criminal legal aid must be brought under better control. The Bill contains a range of powers to assist in that objective. The legal aid system in Scotland cost the taxpayer £133 million in the financial 1995–96 and 60 per cent. of that expenditure was on criminal legal aid. The Government believe that the proposals in the Bill will help to ensure that the system of legal aid rewards lawyers who progress cases fairly and efficiently while at the same time upholding the right of every accused person in Scotland to receive a fair trial.
Those are the main proposals in the Bill, but noble Lords who have scrutinised the measure with care will already be aware that it contains a range of other proposals. Some are in fairly short compass, but most are of considerable significance and assistance to the criminal justice system in Scotland. Clauses 5 to 11 include important provisions for dealing with mentally disordered offenders. Clause 13 increases the maximum
192
penalty for certain statutory sexual offences. Clauses 24 to 27 make important changes in the law on evidence. Clause 58 provides new powers for the police to confiscate drink from under-age drinkers. I anticipate that many other provisions will be the subject of detailed discussion at further stages.
I conclude by saying that the package of measures I have outlined to the House reinforces the Government's policy that society should not be expected to tolerate those who consider themselves to be above or beyond the law. The Bill extends the options open to the courts for supervising prisoners on their release from prison. It widens the courts' powers for dealing with mentally disordered offenders and lesser offenders who need not be sent to prison. These provisions, together with those dealing with appeals, the early release of prisoners and legal aid, illustrate that the Government are alive to their responsibility to keep the criminal justice system able to deal with the changing nature of crime and its effect on law-abiding citizens. The main proposals in the Bill received a considerable measure of support in another place where the Government's main objectives were not seriously challenged. I trust that those objectives will find support among your Lordships. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for setting out the basic structure of this very important piece of legislation in the criminal field. Perhaps I may say at the outset that concern for law and order and the proper order in society does not just belong to the Government. Indeed, those on this side of the House have made it clear time and again that they are also concerned—and always have been—about that particular aspect. However, their particular concern is to ensure that we get a workable system and not just a piecemeal system which the Bill, if implemented, may well turn out to produce.
There is no guarantee at this stage of the proceedings from this side of the House that the Bill will receive such a smooth passage through this House as the noble and learned Lord indicated it received in another place. One reason why it may have gone through more quickly than anticipated is that it is a massive Bill and one which requires considerable consideration by all concerned. Indeed, it is a Bill on which it is extremely difficult to write a Second Reading speech because most of the matters raised are more geared to a Committee stage. The Bill should be referred to as another "miscellaneous provisions" Bill rather than having its present title.
The evidential sections in the Bill are helpful, and anything that helps reduce public expense and wastage of police and court time in the administration of justice is welcomed. So not all parts of the Bill are objectionable to this side of the House. However, I am bound to say that certain aspects of the Bill have a strong political flag-waving flavour about them. That approach to the law is not conducive to good legislation

193
in any field of law. In particular, the issue of mandatory life sentences, which the noble and learned Lord outlined in his speech, and the methods of dealing with legal assistance in criminal matters, seem to be politically and financially driven. That is certainly the case with the latter matter.
The mandatory life sentence provisions are clearly designed to fetter the traditional discretion of the judges. The explanation which the noble and learned Lord tendered to your Lordships' House in the course of his speech just did not help that position at all. The discretion of the Scottish senior judges has been exercised with great care and wisdom in Scotland over the years. There is no discretion where a person is convicted of murder—that is an exception to the general rule.
I suggest that the strength of the Scottish legal system is being seriously undermined by that proposal. The strength of the Scottish legal system has always been the strong foundation of the common law allied to common sense and the use of life sentences where appropriate. Indeed, there are many occasions in the past where judges have, for example, imposed life sentences on a person who has raped for the second time. This is a rather strange provision and it is almost bound to create unjust comparative law in sentences and lead to inequality and lack of consistency in sentencing.
There is no timescale for the commission of the qualifying offence which preceded the current qualifying offence. Moreover, there is no lower age limit. It follows from that that if a young person under the age of 16 commits an offence and is no further trouble until perhaps he is 24 or 25, that person, who may well have led a not quite blameless life but who, nonetheless, had a conviction to carry with him, would automatically under the provision have to be sent to prison for life, subject to the judge finding exceptional circumstances in terms of the Act.
The question of "exceptional circumstances" is not defined. It is left as an open house. There is no guidance for the presiding judge who may have to state reasons for finding exceptional circumstances which fall within the umbrella of the statute. He may indeed have to do so in preparation for an appeal. It is possible that a judge may be forced into a corner where he does not want to impose the mandatory sentence because he has heard all the facts and the circumstances of the case, knows all about the accused and has no doubt been supplied with a multiplicity of reports. The judge may be forced to stretch matters to get the leeway under the "exceptional circumstances" exception—if I may put it that way.
The mandatory life sentence will cause problems. We accept that the law does not belong to the judges any more than it belongs to anyone else. The law is for the benefit of the people but it is the judges who must interpret it. The judges are well represented by the presence in this Chamber tonight of three very senior judges. I shall not therefore pursue the matter any further as no doubt they will have their own particular points of view to put forward. However, judges' views must be listened to and respected even if they are not followed. It is possible that the existence of the
194
mandatory life sentence as set out in the Bill is such that where the judge imposes something less than a mandatory life sentence, the public reaction will automatically be, "Why didn't he give him life?" That is why I say that the presence of the mandatory life sentence provision may very well be a barrier to justice.
Judges are men and women in whom the community places great trust, and their integrity and vigilance in protecting the public of Scotland is seldom challenged. However, that is not to say that they are always right; indeed, the Appeal Court has corrected them on some occasions but, basically, they have a good track record. Given this two-way sentencing street in the legislation now before us, some of them may be tempted to avoid the mandatory sentence by stretching the definition of "exceptional circumstances". That would be bad for the law and bad for the country. It may even put pressure on the prosecutor because he may have sympathy towards an accused and may not push the indictment to its outer limits so that the person will avoid receiving the mandatory life sentence.
Can the Minister explain to the House where the demand for that approach came from? I believe that it began with President Clinton and floated its way across to our Home Secretary, Mr. Howard, who then did a back-to-back exercise with the present Scottish Secretary, and here we are landed with it in Scotland where we do not need it. The prison population is at a new level and the imposition of more mandatory life sentences will increase that population still further in circumstances where the system just cannot cope because it will be overloaded.
No sensible person opposes a system which makes sure that serious criminals are dealt with severely; but this approach is seriously flawed. The system must build in for the convicted prisoner—and, indeed, for his family and other people—some hope for the future. Can the Minister say why it is being applied to people between the ages of 18 and 21 who may very well be at a stage where, with proper guidance from supportive sources, they could pull themselves out of the criminal slot into which they may have fallen? However, instead, they are to be locked up in terms of a mandatory life sentence.
No political party has monopoly of right in dealing with law and order. Anyone, whether politician or otherwise, who claims to have a solution to the so-called "law and order problem" is naïve, not streetwise or mentally unbalanced. There is no answer and all that we can do is to provide legislation which, on the one hand, may reduce offending and, on the other hand, make the community safer when the person is released.
The prison population in Scotland is now over 6,000. Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons made some scathing comments about accommodation when I believe he visited Saughton prison. There are still three prisoners sharing one cell in that prison. We would complain if our citizens were held in such conditions as prisoners overseas. As I understand it, the only plan for a new prison is one which may be completed by 1999 in Kilmarnock which will hold only 500 people.

195
It is important to remember in dealing with this subject that not only the prisoner serves a sentence, but also the prison officers in a way serve it too. The family of a prison officer, or his partner and his children in a way all serve the sentence, too. In many cases the longer officers work in a prison, the more problems outside increase for them. One has only to ask the families concerned about that. While the objective of making sentences count as outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may be achieved, vast problems outside prison may be created. Taking what I might call a judicial swipe at the accused in terms of the mandatory life sentence is not something that is to be welcomed. It costs £26,000 a year to keep a person in prison. That is quite extraordinary.
I shall not go into detail on the removal of the parole provisions as my noble friend Lord Sewel may have a few words to say on that. However, that is another matter which will create problems in prisons. It may be politically "macho"—if I may put it that way—to let the public know what great steps the Government are taking to protect them by doing away with parole. However, it is only three years since the 1993 Act was passed, which dealt with the provisions carefully set out by Lord Kincraig in his report and welcomed by the Government. What has changed since 1993? Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate tell your Lordships' House what analysis has been made of the operation of the 1993 Act, or if the Act has had time to function and to be analysed?
The theory behind this restriction of release seems to be the old adage that if it is not hurting it is not working. While politicians pontificate it is the prison system and the staff who have to co-operate in putting the Act into operation. Additional strains are being placed on prison officers day by day through overcrowding and conditions in prisons but now they are being asked to assess prisoners' behaviour to see whether a prisoner can be given some release days. One can imagine the situation that might arise in a prison where an officer takes a dislike to a prisoner, or a group of prisoners, or vice versa. How can one possibly decide that someone should receive remission off his sentence when that situation arises?
As regards the tagging issue, when this Bill was first framed there was no mention of people under 16. Now people under 16 are included. Indeed in another place a specific undertaking was given that at that stage there was no intention of including under-16s in the Bill although the matter was subject to consultation. Why have the under 16s been included? How can a person under 16 give consent to be tagged? I refer to a child from a broken home who has no father or mother to look after him and is perhaps looked after by an aunt or uncle. There may be no formal custody arrangements of care. Who will give consent for that under 16 year-old? Whatever the merits of this provision may be for the over-16s, it is nonsense to apply it to children of 16 and under. It would be far better to spend the money to try to help children to forgo their criminal ways—if I may call it that—and offending behaviour rather than try this experiment.
196
This measure is being imposed upon Scotland without any pilot scheme having taken place in Scotland. If there has been no pilot scheme, there can be no results of a pilot scheme. Pilot schemes have taken place in England which I understand have already cost half a million pounds. They have not been particularly successful and I understand that magistrates are quite reluctant to use the tagging process. They do not use that process for women. We should remember what happened to the poll tax. Scotland was used as a guinea pig and that scheme fell flat on its face. The tagging process may suffer a similar fate.
Experience so far has shown that the tags do not always work. I am advised by one group that an alarm was set off and there was a great hunt for the man concerned but he was found to be lying asleep in bed at home while the police hunted for him elsewhere. If the process is used sparingly, it is almost meaningless. Female offenders either have to wear the tag on their wrists and wear a long-sleeved blouse, or they have to wear it on their ankles and wear trousers. They do not have much of a choice in their dress when they are wearing a tag. That aspect is perhaps not so important for a man who may boast about the tag. There are indications that a person who has been tagged may be mistaken for a sex offender. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know what happened recently in Stirling when the identity of a sex offender was revealed by, I believe, the local authority to various agencies and he was attacked.
There are various other elements in the Bill which will require scrutiny such as the compulsory taking of DNA samples and other such matters. However, we can deal with those matters in due course. The issue of mentally disordered offenders will have to be considered in consultation with those who are more closely involved with those people. However, what happens if a first qualifying offence is committed while a person is suffering from a mental illness that is not subject to a hospital order? Is that to be considered as a first qualifying offence despite what might be considered to be mitigating circumstances?
The question of appeals has been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It is welcome in so far as it goes. I was intending to ask the Government to indicate if and when they will set about implementing the proposals of the Sutherland Committee to set up a miscarriage of justice review body. However, judging by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has told us, I do not need to bother because he has already given us the answer. It would be helpful, and would perhaps help the image of the Scottish legal system, if there was a lay input into the consideration of miscarriages of justice. It is important to remember that a jury of lay men has heard the first hearing of a case under the legal direction of the judge. Appeals are basically dealt with by judges who in one way usurp the jury function and say, "We do not think any reasonable jury would have done this or done that" or "We think a reasonable jury would have done this or done that despite the evidence". As I said, it would be helpful to have an input from lay persons.

197
I wish to deal fairly briefly with the provisions for legal assistance. This matter again raises important questions. What is it all about and is it necessary? The end result will be that legally assisted persons may well be denied consumer choice within the legal aid system and may even have a solicitor foisted upon them. They may not have a solicitor of their choice to which they are entitled under the Scottish legal aid legislation and the regulations, but may be assigned a solicitor by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. What sort of system is that? There is a severe danger that a two-tier system of justice will be created—or perhaps I should call it injustice—in which the person assisted by legal aid not only loses his freedom of choice but may have the conduct of his case dictated by the state organisation; namely, the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The provisions are there, sticking out a mile, if I may use that colloquialism. Where is the demand for that approach to legal aid? All right, it costs money; it is bound to cost money. One does not get justice for nothing. However, to establish this system is not the answer.
I suspect—I may be wrong—that what sparked off the Bill was the publication of the earnings of certain solicitors in Scotland under the legal aid scheme. It caused considerable comment. I believe that the highest earner received about £1.2 million to £1.5 million from the system. What was ignored was that some firms provide a specialised service and deal only in criminal cases. Their contact with the courts helps the system to operate as smoothly as possible. The income does not go straight to one person. It has to support an office and staff.
The provisions for legal assistance are creating a new layer of bureaucracy and intervention which is bound to be costly and time consuming. Why cannot the Government reconsider this part of the Bill? Why cannot they sit down with the people directly involved in the administration of criminal justice? I understand that there are ongoing talks with the Law Society of Scotland—that is good—and with people such as the Glasgow Bar Association, the procurators in Edinburgh, and so on, to see whether a different system can be worked out. The Law Society is a self-regulating body which works satisfactorily. I understand that all the people involved in the administration of the criminal justice system are happy to co-operate with the Government in seeking to control legal aid, if I may so put it.
There is no objection to the register. That is a sensible idea. But who will frame the code of practice? The Legal Aid Board may approve it. How many criminal practitioners will be on the body which presents the code to the Legal Aid Board for approval?
New Section 25B(1)(c) is an extraordinary piece of legislation. The board will not control the conduct of the solicitor but the conduct of the case. New Section 25B(1)(c)(v) is worse. The code of practice will determine how a solicitor should conduct the relations with the prosecution. What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that a solicitor faced with an overwhelming case on paper who does not give a plea to the Crown will be found to be in breach of the code?
198
It is another nonsense. The provision should be reconsidered, as should the prospect of one solicitor monitoring another within this field.
There is much more to be said. However, in closing perhaps I may refer to the powers of investigation. Again, those must be looked at. The measure is an all-embracing, hoovering operation, first, by request of the board, and, secondly, by warranted entry. The interesting point is that the client is not represented. The legislation has driven a coach and horses through the old tradition of confidentiality. I shall be corrected by noble and learned Lords who will speak in the debate, but I understand that the right of confidentiality does not lie in the hands of the solicitor but of the client.
If the client is not to be consulted on the matter, any papers can be taken away from an office—even from an MP's office, if the MP has received papers of complaint from a client. Under that section, a warrant can be obtained to raid the MP's office and papers taken. Could we not use the facilities of the Law Society? It has powers of recovery of papers if it believes that a solicitor; is acting improperly. Alternatively, instead of the bull-at-the-gate approach for very few occasions, can a commissioner be appointed, as in civil cases, to examine; documents and to extract from them such documents as the commissioner thinks relate to the alleged offence by the solicitor?
I apologise to the House for taking more time than I had meant to do, but this is an important piece of legislation. I do not say that I look forward to Committee stage, but I can assure noble Lords that there will be one.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I make no apology, for speaking as a layman among distinguished experts on law and other matters. I wish to put a layman's point of view about the Bill, having a long interest in and experience of Scottish politics. We have our experts on these Benches. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is an expert. He has been in prison, I hasten to say not as an inmate—although that might give him further expertise—but as a social worker in prison work. At present he is a prison visitor. He will add his contribution throughout the long Committee stages. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is a distinguished Welsh lawyer with strong Scottish affiliations. He will deal on level terms with the distinguished lawyers in other parts of the Chamber.
I wish to discuss a simple fact. I am told, the evidence appears to say, that prison does not improve people. A brief paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill states that cutting down the number of early releases will cost £65 million to £100 million, with some additional expenditure. That is an enormous sum of money. I do not know whether the figure includes the capital expenditure. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will tell us. That is a great deal of money to spend on a Bill about which the Law Society of Scotland is particularly scathing. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned the Kincraig Committee and

199
the fact that its proposals have not been given a fair trial. The society refers to the amount of work done. Its brief concludes coldly by stating,
"The Society believes that these proposals will have a serious adverse impact on prisoner behaviour".
These are extraordinarily serious accusations. We need to consider what can happen and is happening in Scotland in an effort to rehabilitate prisoners. I have the figures from the Apex Trust. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows it well. It deals with prisoners in prison and after prison. Out of 4,000 individual cases, 40 per cent. obtained employment and only 5 per cent. offended again while under supervision. That is good work which should be encouraged rather than keeping people in prison for a much longer period, increasing their resentment. In addition, 60 volunteers from industry are seconded to the Apex Trust by their firms. That is a most effective contribution from industry and one which we should surely encourage. The total cost is £300 per prisoner. That seems a small price to pay. Surely expenditure to encourage such an organisation with volunteers would be more valuable than keeping prisoners longer in prison, increasing their resentment, at a cost of £500 a week.
I give two examples from difficult districts in London. One is the Dalston Youth Project, which deals with 11 to 18 year-olds who are at risk of becoming offenders. In other words, those young people are sent to the project by various bodies. They are provided with mentors, who are volunteers chosen from some 250 who apply. Thirty are selected and trained to look after the youngsters. Many of the volunteers are black men and women who have done excellent jobs in their own communities. The close looking after of those would-be offenders costs less then £3,000 a year. After one year, 73 per cent. of them return to school or college. So the project saves a potential 73 per cent. from crime.
Another example is the Hackney Youth Justice Intermediate Training Centre, which takes in and looks after about 40 young men and women—mainly men—under 18. The average age is 16. They are under the care of the centre as an alternative to custody. It is their last chance. They are given close personal attention. If they will not get up in the morning, they are bought an alarm clock. If that does not work, they are hoisted out of bed. They earn a little money and a percentage is paid back to victims. The project is extremely successful. Its "customers" have not been before a court for 18 months. The project costs some £200 a week per person. That appears to be an economic way to proceed rather than putting those young people in prison and making a large percentage of them worse.
I understand that, in Scotland, expenditure on the whole of such social work is about £31 million. It is quite obvious that such expenditure does a great deal more good than spending another £100 million on putting people in prison for longer.
200
There are many good people who are available for this sort of work. I end with one final incident from some time ago. There is in the county of Angus a reform school called Rossie Farm School. Forty or 50 years ago it was under the charge of a Major Carson, who was an exceptional person. He used to achieve a success rate of almost 90 per cent. in the negative sense that the young people there never offended again. But above that, he had a tremendous success rate with intelligent inmates, who in many cases went on to do extremely well and would return to give substantial presents to their old school which had done them so much good. It appears that the whole trend in Scotland of keeping people in prison longer is uneconomic. The £100 million would be far better spent in another way.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, there is much in the Bill that is to be admired. By and large, I commend it. I do so in the context of a world in which we still have to fall back on imprisonment as the final available course of disposal. I endorse much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in regard to the merits or otherwise of that form of disposal.
There are just two clauses on which I wish to make some comment. If I seem critical in respect of those clauses, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will understand that I do so purely with the intention of being constructive and helpful, not destructive.
Clause 12 increases the sheriff's sentencing power from three to five years. I listened with interest to the explanation given for that provision by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I took the message that there was a desirability to achieve "maximum flexibility". It was not immediately obvious to me why the provision was necessary at all.
At present the sheriff has a power to remit cases for sentence to the High Court. Sheriffs can, and do, exercise that power. Why should that not be sufficient? There is one possible danger that may arise as a result of this innovation; namely, that there will be a greater risk of inconsistent levels of sentencing in the sheriff court. The greater the range of sentences that are permitted, the greater is the room for divergence between levels of sentence between different sheriffdoms.
The problem is less serious in the High Court, because there a relatively small number of judges are engaged and they have considerable opportunity to discuss sentencing levels among themselves. While sheriffs can and do meet together, that can be achieved only occasionally. It may be difficult for them to achieve a consistency of level without frequent opportunities for consultation. I therefore have reservations about the purpose and merit of this provision.
Essentially, as I believe is recognised, this change is concerned not with the simple desire to achieve longer sentences but with the allocation of work

201
between the High Court and the sheriff court. In my experience as a High Court judge, not infrequently cases would appear in the High Court which rapidly degenerated into matters which could and should have been sent to the sheriff court rather than the High Court. That is obviously undesirable for the economic administration of the High Court system and circuits.
The increase in sentencing power proposed in Clause 12 ought to lead to a radical reappraisal of the allocation of business between the High Court and the sheriff court. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to give an assurance that there will be a significant decrease in the number of cases allocated to the High Court, to the benefit of the civil business of the Court of Session and to those who litigate there.
The other clause on which I wish to comment is Clause 20. It is a rewriting of Section 108 of the 1995 Act with certain extensions, some of which are prompted by the provisions in this Bill. The clause relates to the role of the prosecution in sentencing. It is an important provision.
Whether any sentence should be passed at all in a case has long been a matter for the prosecution. The prosecution must move for sentence before the court can act. In practice, usually the prosecution does little more after trial than disclose previous convictions, if any; or, if there has been no trial, to narrate the circumstances of the incident.
The background has now changed. Sentences by reference to some forms of tariff have crept in over the years. There is now a substantial degree of guidance or direction by Parliament as to what the sentence is to be. Parliament sometimes gets it wrong. I am extremely glad to see in Clause 5 the end of that absurdly low maximum sentence of two years which Parliament prescribed for certain sexual offences with young girls. That prescription by Parliament has long been a source of embarrassment in sentencing in a number of High Court trials.
However that may be, the state now plays an important role in determining sentences. The old idea that the prosecutor was not concerned with sentencing was destroyed when the prosecution was given a right of appeal against sentences as unduly lenient. Now, looking at Clause 20, it seems to me that there is little which is not potentially open to challenge by the Lord Advocate. Under Clause 17(2), he can challenge the judge's assessment of exceptional circumstances justifying an alternative course to the sentences prescribed in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. The standard for his intervention under the new heads in the new Section 108 is not one of undue leniency but that the disposal was inappropriate. It cannot now seriously be maintained that the prosecution is not concerned with sentencing.
We have reached the curious situation where the prosecution initiates the sentencing process and then sits back while only one side—the defence—is heard and then the prosecution may appeal. It is unusual for a judge to determine what may be a contentious issue between two parties by hearing one side alone. Every
202
judge can be materially assisted by the guidance of counsel and should not be deprived of it. It is obviously preferable to get the correct sentence at the outset rather than trying to get it corrected on an appeal.
If the clause stands then, it should be qualified by a reference to the propriety of the prosecution making a submission to the court on sentence. That, of course, will be done with the same restraint as is exercised by the defence but nevertheless would be sufficient to enable a balanced view to be formed. Alternatively, the right of appeal could be made conditional on the point having been raised by the prosecution before the lower court.
Those are the only two clauses on which I wish to say anything. By and large I feel that there is a lot of good in the Bill and by and large I commend it.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I feel that when any criminal repeats the same crime again and again, the punishment must be sufficiently severe to prevent that criminal repeating it. That is what the public require Parliament to do. It is up to Parliament to make the punishment a deterrent, not the courts alone. The length of a life sentence must, I feel, be decided by Parliament and that is where I support the Bill.
It is a very difficult Bill to understand because it is mostly amending other Acts. On page 7, in Clause 4(5) we see the words:
"and the court shall not make the order unless the offender agrees to comply with its requirements".
Fair enough. But what if he or she does not agree? Then on page 14 in Clause 6 we see the words of the rubric:
"Effect of hospital direction".
The decision appears to be up to the Secretary of State, but I feel that he should only act after consultation and with the advice of a medical officer. Clause 9 amends Section 53 of the 1995 Act. Surely the small amendment to Section 53 in Clause 10 should be put into the same clause. There are also a number of other amendments to Section 53 in Schedule 1 to the Bill. That is where I find the Bill difficult to follow. At the bottom of page 35, in Clause 30(7), it is difficult to understand to which section of which Act the provision applies.
Perhaps I may take one more example of the 1995 Act. Section 106 deals with the right of appeal and a new subsection (1)(bb) is added by Clause 17. A new subsection (1)(da) is added by Clause 22 and new subsections (3), (3A) and (3B) are inserted under Clause 16. A new Section 106A is added by Clause 18. That makes the Bill difficult to follow and it makes it difficult to understand the nitty-gritty of the legislation.
I sincerely hope that after the Bill's passage through the House, laymen will be able to understand the legislation if they take a little care. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, ignorance of the law is no excuse, unfortunately.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, it has for many years been the practice in Scotland for the senior judges, Ministers and many others to work together in all matters relating to the administration and reform of the Scottish system of criminal justice. Co-operation, mutual respect and understanding have been the principal features of that practice which has done so much to preserve and, where necessary, strengthen a system which I still firmly believe is without equal and in which, for the most part, people in Scotland continue to have confidence. The fact that sheriffs and judges are still held in high regard by most sections of the public in Scotland is due in no small way to the fact that all those engaged in the criminal justice system are seen to be working together to create a safer and more just place for all our citizens.
One has only to mention some of the principal landmarks in our recent history to illustrate the measure of the contribution which the process of co-operation has made: the Thomson Committee which reported in 1972 and again in 1975 and whose recommendations were implemented by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; the Emslie Committee on Penalties for Homicide which also reported in 1972 and one of whose recommendations has been picked up, perhaps inadvertently, by the Bill; the Kincraig Committee which reported in 1989 and whose work provided the foundation for the important reforms in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; and, most recently, the Sutherland Committee, among whose membership were two very distinguished and experienced judges, the then Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ross, and Sheriff Gerald Gordon whose report last year provided the basis for Clause 16 of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explained.
During my time as Lord Justice General, I worked closely, as the noble and learned Lord will know, with the then Minister and his predecessor as Lord Advocate in the preparation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 and the various consolidating measures which reached the statute book later the same year. It was therefore very much to my regret that the last few months of my period of office as Lord Justice General were marked by confrontation, as I tried to respond, with so many others who were at least as much disturbed by it as I was, to the White Paper on crime and punishment, which was published last summer and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, pointed out, was formulated apparently as part of a political campaign. That regret remains with me as I see that so little has changed since the publication of the White Paper despite the opposition which the proposals received from almost every agency concerned with the criminal justice system in Scotland—many with far greater knowledge and understanding of the practical effects of the proposals than I can claim—except the police.
It is not easy for me to be conciliatory in these circumstances but I recognise, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate reminded us, that the Bill has come from another place and that it contains some good measures as well as bad ones. Therefore, I do not wish
204
to speak at length in opposition to the principles of the Bill. I should like in due course in both this debate and at Committee stage to suggest some ways in which it might be amended and improved. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will listen to my remarks, sharing my belief that we owe a heavy responsibility to the public in Scotland to improve our system of criminal justice, not to damage it, and that co-operation and not confrontation should be the atmosphere in which we debate the Bill.
The responsibility for the maintenance of law and order must rest with the Government. Speaking entirely for myself, I can see no objection on constitutional grounds to the process by which Ministers recommend to Parliament measures whose effect will be to restrict the discretion of judges in sentencing and the judges, if the measures are approved by Parliament, being bound by them. I believe that with that responsibility, which means that the Government are answerable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate for their policies, comes a responsibility of another kind; that is, the responsibility to give leadership, to consult wisely, to listen to advice and to promote understanding of their policies. I believe that the judgment of history will be that it is in that vital area of good government that Ministers have laid themselves open to criticism.
With the enactment of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which incorporated many of the recommendations of the Kincraig Committee, it seemed that the Government were persuaded that the best way of strengthening the criminal justice system was to reduce the risk of reoffending by convicted criminals, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, made reference. Indeed, from my own experience I can say that it is most unusual in Scotland for a person who is convicted of a serious offence not to have offended previously. The aim appeared to be to provide for their rehabilitation both before and after their release from custody. The emphasis was to be on the use of the parole system to balance the negative effects of imprisonment. The aim was to improve social reintegration on release and to encourage prisoners, by a fair and impartial system of review and supervision, to address their behaviour and not reoffend. Part of the philosophy was that offenders who showed themselves worthy of that treatment were to be offered the incentive of serving a substantial part of their sentences out of prison, subject to instant recall at any time if their conduct gave rise to concern on the part of the Parole Board. The same philosophy had been adopted two years previously for England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Now, as to what I believe is the almost unanimous dismay of those who were working together to make that new system work and enable it to prove itself, it is to be abandoned, as we see from Part III of the Bill. What ought to have been allowed time to prove itself is to be cast aside without waiting for the results. The reason given is the need for honesty in sentencing. But, in truth, if honesty is what we seek, it is hard to believe that it is not the tide of public opinion that is being allowed to rule the policy. Instead of explaining the policies so recently adopted by the Government

205
themselves, the soft option has been taken of responding to the emotions of fear and insecurity by demonising the criminal. The power to govern is being displayed as the power to punish; hence the title of the Bill. Thus, much to my regret, there appears to be a process of polarisation by which one side of the criminal justice system is set against the other. I believe that as a long-term policy that will fail. In fact, there is no long-term agenda. If these harsh new policies do not succeed, there is no way forward, unless mass imprisonment is to result.
The answer to the problem, surely, must lie in a greater understanding of the nature of our society and the way people live and how they are housed and educated, not in shutting the door after the event. Those who are being led to believe, as many are, that the provisions in the Bill for the imposition of automatic sentences will lead to a significant reduction in offending are likely to be disappointed. In the short term, the words of those who would be tough on crime will no doubt win the day. But it is the long term which matters, and that is the background against which we must debate the Bill.
There are, indeed, some good things in the Bill, as I said. I am particularly glad to see in Clause 3 a widening of the power to make a supervised release order. That is something for which I and some other judges in Scotland have been asking in order to strengthen the powers of disposal in the case of violent and sexual offenders, although that was in the context of the parole system introduced by the 1993 Act. If the resources, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred, can be made available to meet that demand, I agree that this measure should produce results which will improve public safety and reduce crime.
Clauses 5 to 11 which deal with mentally disturbed offenders contain some useful reforms, although we may wish to examine some of the detail. Clause 13 which increases the maximum penalties for certain statutory offences—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, referred to Clause 5 but I believe that it is Clause 13—is also welcome and, as he pointed out, long overdue. Here again the judiciary has expressed unease about the inadequacy of its sentencing powers when seen alongside its sentencing powers for common law crimes, which in the High Court are unlimited.
Clause 15, which will bring children sentenced for murder within the scope of existing procedures that govern discretionary life sentence prisoners, is an interesting development. This is the measure which appears to reflect a similar recommendation by the Emslie Committee in 1972, in paragraph 100 of its report, where it was stated that it was desirable to strengthen judicial involvement in the sentencing of this class of offender and, through the pronouncement of the court, to emphasise its deterrent effect in this most difficult area of juvenile crime. However, I wonder what the reason is for introducing the reform at this time, bearing in mind that the effect of the clause, as I understand it, will mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland will no longer have any decisions to take in
206
the release of those children. The matter will lie entirely with the judges who make the initial recommendation and with the Parole Board which recommends release.
Clause 16 seeks to implement most of the recommendations of the Sutherland Committee and I am content with what is proposed. I accept the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to why it was decided not to go further and set up an independent review body. I believe that that was a sensible judgment in the context of the situation which we have in Scotland and the way in which these matters are being administered.
I should like to add my words of tribute to the work of the Sutherland Committee which consulted so widely in the course of its work. The measures in the clause, when reduced to print, may seem insignificant but I believe they will go a long way towards strengthening the powers of the High Court in dealing effectively with those cases where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
This is not, of course, the time to go into detail but I should like to raise one or two other points now in the hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to consider them before the Bill goes into Committee. The suggestions are offered in the spirit of co-operation, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, referred, with the aim of making some of the more difficult provisions in the Bill more effective and more workable.
Clause 1 provides for the imposition of automatic sentences of life imprisonment. There are two points, I suggest, which require further examination by Ministers if the clause is to remain part of the Bill. The first relates to the cross-Border aspects of the measure, some of which I touched on in my observations at the Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. As the Lord Advocate will remember, the noble Baroness the Minister described this as "kilting" the Bill. I am not sure how she would describe the operation when conducted, as I am about to do, in the reverse. To refer to it as "removing the kilt" would seem a little indelicate.
The second point relates to Clause 2 as well as to Clause 1. It incldes the provision that the High Court may decline to impose the automatic sentence if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing the sentence which otherwise would be imposed automatically.
As for the cross-Border aspects I have, from the outset of these proposals, been voicing my concern about the difficulties which are likely to arise in trying to compile a list of violent and sexual offences which, without being too sweeping, will make sense in Scotland and, at the same time, would be compatible with the corresponding lists for England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The two systems of law and procedure are so different that a uniform pattern across the Border is probably not attainable. But if we have to proceed down this road it would, I suggest, be a great help to all practitioners, and no doubt also to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, if the lists of relevant offences from England and Wales and Northern Ireland could be set out in full on the face of the Bill, as the Minister has now agreed to do in the light of my remarks in the case of the Scottish offences in the Crime (Sentences) Bill.

207
To do that would also, I believe, provide an opportunity for removing at least one anomaly. As the Bill stands, a previous conviction for an offence of lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour or practices, which is commonly found in the case of child abuse, for example, will qualify the offender in the event of a repeat offence—and I stress any of the offences in the list will qualify for this purpose if he has a previous offence on the list—for an automatic life sentence under Clause 1. But there is no equivalent for that offence on the list of qualifying offences for England and Wales or Northern Ireland. The reason, I understand, is that the nearest equivalent is the statutory offence of indecent assault for which the maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment. I think I can understand why it was thought not possible for an automatic life sentence to be imposed for that statutory offence, even for a repeat offence of the same kind. My point is simply this: it is not something which should trouble the High Court in Scotland which will be sentencing not for the previous offence committed elsewhere but for the offence of which the person has just been convicted which, to give it jurisdiction, must have been committed in Scotland. The only purpose of referring to the previous offence will be to show that the person has qualified himself for receipt of the life sentence from the Scottish court. It would seem odd and, many might say, unfair and unsatisfactory if a man whose previous offence of this kind was committed in Gretna qualified for the life sentence while the man whose previous offence was in Carlisle did not. I hope that the Lord Advocate will feel able to give further thought to the possibility of listing the English and Northern Ireland equivalents of this crime in the Bill as relevant offences so that a logical and coherent system can be provided and to avoid the purpose of this clause, which no doubt is directed at the evil of child sexual abuse above others, being defeated in such circumstances.
Turning to the question of exceptional circumstances, there are, I think, two problems which must be addressed. The first is the meaning of "exceptional circumstances". The second is to identify the circumstances which can be taken into account. There are two distinct issues here. The first is, I accept, a matter for the court. We may wish to alter the wording to find some other formula which is more acceptable but, at the end of the day, whatever phrase is used it will be for the court to interpret it and to apply it to the circumstances of each case. But I do not agree that it is enough for Ministers to leave it to the courts to decide what circumstances can be taken into account in the search for what is exceptional. The particular issue which is bound to be raised sooner or later is whether the sentencing court can have regard to the circumstances of the offence as well as those of the offender and, if so, whether it can have regard to the circumstances of the previous offence as well as those of the offence which is before the court.
I believe there are two positions which could be adopted on this issue, either of which is logically defensible. What Ministers cannot do, in view of the practical implications in this uncharted territory, is to
208
slide between the two stools and refuse to declare which of them they wish to adopt in order to give effect to their policy. The first position is that the circumstances of the offence—and, indeed, of both offences—must be left out of account. On this view it will be conclusive for the purposes of the automatic sentence that the offences were qualifying ones. The question of whether they were not serious offences of their type will be irrelevant. To some this may seem harsh, but it would avoid all argument about whether the offence was or was not serious. It would also avoid the difficulties which are bound to arise in informing the court about the circumstances of the first offence which may have been committed in another jurisdiction a long time ago.
The other approach, and the more just approach, would be to say that it is open to the court to look at the circumstances of the offence. This would make sense in bringing our common law crimes into the list. There would be no point in bringing into the regime cases which, although bearing the label—the nomen iuris, to use the correct words—of a serious violent or sexual crime, were after all quite trivial. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, pointed out, cases which may seem serious to begin with in the High Court may turn out later to be far from serious and yet the convictions will be High Court convictions. Unless attention is paid to this matter the result will be to devalue and discredit the use of the life sentence—a sentence which, if imposed literally, could not, as the Emslie Committee observed, be more awesome and whose deterrent effect must, for use in the right cases, at all costs be preserved. What I fear is a judge having to declare under the requirements of Section 2 of the 1993 Act that the punishment element for the crime is something like two or three years while at the same time sentencing the prisoner to life imprisonment. This approach, however, leads directly into the problem as to how the court is to be informed about the circumstances of the first offence without the risk of dispute about them which could cause delay and uncertainty.
The first stage in the resolution of this difficulty requires a decision to be taken by Ministers as to which of these two courses to adopt. If the second, and more just, approach is to be adopted something will need to be done to address the problem, especially as it is not, if my recollection is correct, at present the practice for the prosecutor in Scotland to enlarge upon the information set out in the list of previous convictions of which notice has been given under Section 69 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
And there is another problem about the previous qualifying offence which does not seem to have been addressed in the Bill and to which the Lord Advocate may wish to give further thought. No doubt this is because we are indeed being taken into new and uncharted territory where there are no rules of practice to guide us as to what should be done. It is the practice in Scotland for previous convictions which are under appeal not to be included in the list which is lodged under Section 69 of the 1995 Act. But what is to be done if the offender who has been convicted of a qualifying offence is released on bail pending his appeal against his conviction and then reoffends while on bail

209
by committing another qualifying offence before his appeal is disposed of? Some provision will have to be made to enable the prosecutor to give notice to the offender that his first conviction, if upheld by the appeal court, is to be treated as a qualifying offence for the purposes of this clause, as I would understand the intention is to be. And some provision will also have to be made to enable the court to adjourn the case for sentence—we are after all, speaking about the life sentence—until the appeal against the first conviction is disposed of, which, in a complicated case involving, say, the leading of additional evidence, might take some considerable time, far in excess of the period which is currently provided for by the power to adjourn in Section 201 of the 1995 Act.
I have already taken up far too much time. I shall have to reserve other matters of detail to later stages in our discussion of the Bill. I would only mention in passing, in order to leave it aside for the time being, my concern about the operation of the provisions in Clauses 30 to 38 for early release from custody. Under Clause 13 of the Crime (Sentences) Bill—the English Bill—all offenders (I stress "all offenders") serving a sentence of 12 months or more will be subject to a release supervision order, the breach of which will be dealt with as an offence. Under the Scottish Bill, as I understand it—I should be grateful to be corrected if I am wrong—supervision after release will be available only if the court orders this when passing sentence before the offender is removed to custody. There is an obvious weakness here which affects public safety despite the provisions in Clauses 34 and 35 for punishing those who reoffend after release. This point is directed to the very emphasis of the Bill which is punishment and not prevention of reoffending. What is missing is the guidance and support which is needed after release to prevent reoffending, the need for which may only be seen while the offender is in custody. It is this aspect of the Bill which attracts so much concern in view of the abolition of the parole system. In the English Bill the position can be defended by the Minister—I am not saying effectively, but at least it is a defence—on the ground that the new system will in all cases be available and that it will provide a better pattern of supervision in the case of prisoners who would have been refused parole. As I understand the Bill, that defence is not available in the provisions for Scotland. If I am right about that, the Lord Advocate may wish to consider whether we should not adopt the English approach in order to reduce the risk that the abolition of the parole system will increase the evil of reoffending after release from custody.
As others have said, there are many matters of detail to be considered at the Committee stage. That is a pity, because there are some measures here which need to be implemented without more delay. I certainly would not have been for refusing a Second Reading to the Bill, even if that course were open to us, but I hope that when the Bill leaves this House it will be an improved Bill which will assist the administration of justice in Scotland, which is so important to its good government and of such concern to us all.
8.44 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has already mentioned, my interest in the Bill lies in issues concerning prisons, prisoners, victims, community sentences, mentally disordered prisoners and children. I confirm a non-pecuniary interest, that I am a member of the Visiting Committee for Glenochil Young Offenders' Institution, and I mention in passing that I was involved in criminal justice social work for many years.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that consent is normally required when a community-based order is made. That would be because non-compliance with the order renders the person placed under the order liable to repunishment.
The provisions in the Bill for mandatory sentences of life imprisonment and of seven years for repeated class A drug trafficking offenders are both qualified by "exceptional circumstances" provisions. It is in the extent of the interpretation of these "exceptional circumstances" that the justice or injustice of Clauses 1 and 2 will have to be determined. I am certainly reassured by the fact that Clause 2 will apply to genuine drug dealers appearing on indictment in the High Court and not to some pathetic addict caught sharing illegal drugs with addict friends. I sincerely hope that such sad offenders will continue to be dealt with in the Sheriff Court. They are, in any case, more in need of help than punishment.
Clause 3 introduces the supervised release order. I am reasonably impressed by this. But then I am also impressed by the current scheme of supervised and conditional release. I can approve of the specification of between three months and two years, or a quarter of sentence if greater, for post-custodial supervision. It has to be noted that this SRO will be an additional, and so consecutive, sentence, whereas the 1993 arrangements of supervised and conditional release are a constituent part of a single sentence. The process of explanation of this to offenders will need attention as there is always a degree of resistance to post-custodial supervision.
In Clause 4, the introduction of restriction of liberty orders brings to offenders a system of curfews, exclusions, inclusions and monitoring, both by humans and by electronic devices. Restriction of liberty will also be available as an additional condition of a probation order. I approve of that. I am reasonably satisfied that a restriction of liberty order can be useful, so long as it is within the context of a human supervision system. I am obviously concerned about remote monitoring in isolation. I am perhaps less concerned about monitoring by telephone than by electronic device or tag.
Recognising the chaotic lifestyles of many offenders, especially juveniles, I believe that there will be a need for substantial counselling if the restriction of liberty order is to be successful; that is, counselling about how to comply, how to make good use of leisure opportunities, use of time at home—of which there will be a good deal—contact with acquaintances, which may not be desirable, and employment measures. Without this human intervention, I see remote monitoring as having little constructive input, and so as being suitable

211
only for generally law-abiding citizens who have erred once. However, I welcome attempts to widen the range of community-based disposals.
The measures for the mentally disordered offender introduce a hybrid order—the hospital direction. This will pose considerable ethical problems for psychiatric staff as well as providing a disincentive for the patient to get better and respond to treatment. I am concerned by the thought that someone with a background of psychiatric illness can be thought of as being robust enough to withstand the pressured life of prison. Already, there are too many prisoners who could be classified as psychiatric patients. They need the protection of the prison staff to survive and, inevitably, they do not have the wisdom to "stay behind their door"—itself a practical but unjust solution.
However, I do recognise that there are circumstances where an offender may have committed an offence while mentally fit and has subsequently become mentally unfit or—the other way round—committed the offence while mentally unfit and has recovered substantially. This hospital direction may have the administratively unfortunate effect of "bed-blocking" or a reluctance to move the patient on to prison. This is currently dealt with by the existing regulations for the supervised release of patients on hospital orders and on restriction orders.
Clause 12 raises the maximum sentence allowed to the sheriff court. In summary cases it rises, as we have heard, to six months and 12 months and in solemn procedure it rises from three years to five years. I would have preferred to see the solemn procedure maximum rise to four years. That would keep it in line with the classification and status of prisoners who, at four years, are identified as long term.
Clause 13 raises the scale of sentence for sexual offences against girls under 16 years of age, as has been said, from two years to 10 years. That will need to be well publicised among young people, among whom the rules regarding unlawful sexual intercourse are often casually regarded. However, I recognise that the new 10-year maximum sentence is for cases appearing on indictment. That suggests to me that it will not usually apply to offences of consensual sex with a girl aged between 13 years and 16 years.
Clause 14 introduces yet another community sentence; that is, disqualification from driving for non-motoring offences and also for fine defaulters. I am glad to see that there will be a pilot scheme for this controversial measure. I believe that it will only be suitable for law-abiding citizens who have erred once or twice or rarely. The risk that an offender will ignore the driving ban and drive without a licence—and, more critically, without insurance—will have to be clear in the sentencer's mind. Uninsured drivers create a special class of victim after accidents.
Part III of the Bill brings us to a really difficult area of penal policy—the introduction of a major change in liberation practice. The introduction of these new measures of early release will endanger the security and good order of our 22 prison establishments unless—and
212
it is a big unless—they are well explained to the prisoners and prison staff. I am tempted here to suggest that Ministers should involve themselves in this task of explanation.
There is one provision missing from the Bill, which would be helpful in that regard—the instruction to sentencers to reduce the length of sentences passed to take into account the new restricted provision for so-called "early release". Prisoners are generally a conservative bunch who do not like change. What is more, they have a keen sense of injustice to themselves—which I wish they would transfer to their victims, which would solve a great many problems. Managing these changes in liberation practice, which sounds as though more time will be spent inside, will be tricky and, basically, puts at risk the roofs of many of our prisons.
I am also concerned by the assessment process by which early release days will be awarded. The first three days per month will be virtually automatic, I suggest, unless the prisoner has been on report. The second three days will be awarded for above-average participation and commitment to the prison's programmes, of which I approve. While that is superficially sound, it is difficult to understand how this will operate in a prison which does not have a full programme for prisoners to participate in. This early release scheme introduces a bureaucratic approach of questionable efficiency. The existing 1993 scheme only involves the loss of remission by misbehaviour, which is entirely up to the prisoner. It will also become more difficult to co-ordinate a sensible plan of post-custodial supervision and support, especially where accommodation has to be arranged. I hope that this scheme will be introduced cautiously, if it has to be introduced at all.
The introduction of alcohol testing for prisoners in Clause 39 extends the current approach of mandatory drug testing for prisoners. This has aroused the suspicions of the civil liberties lobby, and probably quite rightly so. I doubt whether this alcohol measure will be as significant as mandatory drug testing has proved to be due to the decreased scale of illegal alcohol in prison. The provision of random tests and tests on suspicion is already beginning to identify drug misusers in prison. As drug misuse is rife in prison, I believe that mandatory testing is the only coherent response available.
Finally, Clause 58 introduces the power of the police to confiscate alcohol which is being consumed in a public place by under-age drinkers and by those who appear to have supplied them with that drink. While that will tidy up an anomaly in public order, it will have to be handled with considerable tact to avoid incitement and harassment allegations. I hope that a pilot project can be undertaken, if that has not already been done.
This Bill has many liabilities contained within it. I look forward to a lively Committee stage.
8.57 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, this is an extremely important Bill not, I believe, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but for

213
other reasons which I hope to make clear in the course of this speech. I should like to begin by saying that I share many of the concerns expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead about the background to this Bill. He mentioned a list of distinguished judges who had contributed towards the reform of criminal justice by presiding over committees. I add to that list Lord Stewart and Lord Dunpark whose committees made recommendations which were acted on in the 1970s and 1980s. I also agree entirely with my noble and learned friend about the importance in this Bill of extending the powers to make supervised release orders.
But I want to contrast the whole background to the Bill with that of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, 1995. At the Second Reading of the 1995 Bill in this House the then Minister described it as
"the result of the most substantial overhaul of the criminal justice system in Scotland in the last 15 years."—[Official Report, 29/11/94; col. 545.]
When that Bill was enacted on the 19th July 1995—fewer than 19 months ago—it contained 118 sections, seven schedules and it filled 179 pages of the statute book. In asking the House to give it a Second Reading, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said,
"We have been careful to take account of the views of all those with an interest in the criminal justice system in Scotland. The proposals in this Bill are the product of wide and detailed consultation: seven consultation papers, five research studies, a White Paper and a report from the Scottish Law Commission. I cannot recollect in past years any proposal for legislation in Scotland which has been subjected to that intense degree of consultation other than the Children (Scotland) Bill published last week".
He continued,
"The responses to the consultation suggest to me that we have found the right approach to reform. The great majority of our proposals were supported. And where our original proposals met with reasoned opposition they were reconsidered, and discarded or adjusted".—[col. 546.]
Please observe and note the Government's pride at that time in the width, depth and success of the consultation which gave rise to that massive Bill, that so-called "substantial overhaul". These words of self-congratulation echo similar statements with which in October 1992 the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Ian Lang, at Second Reading in another place introduced the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill.
That became an Act of Parliament as recently as 1993 and came into force on 1st October of that year. It had 48 sections, seven schedules and occupied 53 pages of the statute book. That Act is to be repealed almost in its entirety by the present Bill. It is to be swept away before it has had any real or measurable effect. Yet, when it was introduced, Ministers rightly claimed that it had resulted from very wide study and consultation. Its gestation period was over five years. At the end of a lengthy period of consultation, the Government decided to introduce into Scotland a complete and fundamental reform of the system for the release of convicted prisoners. The Government's new system for Scotland was to be modelled on that introduced for England and
214
Wales by the 1991 Act, to which my noble friend has referred. That was based upon a report of the Parole Review Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.
The second source of ideas for the 1993 Act was the report of the very distinguished Scottish committee chaired by Lord Kincraig. At Second Reading of that Bill the Secretary of State, Mr Ian Lang, described the report of Lord Kincraig as,
"generally very well received and our proposals reflect the wide acceptability of most of its recommendations".—[Official Report. Commons, 19/10/92; col. 238.]
The junior Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, concluded his speech on that Bill with these words:
"…the Bill has a strong reforming purpose. It will be in the best interests of Scotland's prisons, prisoners, prison officers and the public at large, and I strongly commend it to the House".—
Yet now both he and the present Secretary of State, with the help of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, propose the total abolition of the parole system which was introduced just three years ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked for an explanation of the new thinking. We got it from Lord James Douglas Hamilton on 30th September 1996 at a public meeting, which my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead and I attended. What he told the astonished audience about the proposals in the White Paper which are now contained in the Bill was the following:
"I have already told you what a danger I believe cynicism can pose to the reputation of our legal system. How do we explain to a victim that a convicted criminal is walking out of gaol after serving only half or two-thirds of his sentence? It does not surprise me that the public are sometimes cynical about this practice".
I listened to those words with some astonishment. I was so astonished that I asked for a copy of the speech. I have read from it. I was moved to respond that the explanation for this practice could and should be sought from the Minister himself because it was he who had successfully invited Parliament to enact Section 1 of what became the 1993 Act which provided that convicted criminals should walk out of jail after serving only half or two-thirds of their sentences. To paraphrase another remark of the Minister on 30th September, it does not surprise me that the public are sometimes cynical about Scottish Office Ministers.
The then Secretary of State for Scotland also said in his Second Reading speech in another place on 19th October 1992:
"There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says—a fixed number of years in custody. The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig Committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community, during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle".—[col. 238.]
That was the philosophy of the 1993 Act which is to be abolished. We must make no mistake but that the Bill that is to receive its Second Reading today is a complete and utter reversal of the philosophy, thinking, methods and systems introduced and framed by the Government and enacted in 1993. It would be thoroughly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

215
The most striking contrast between the genesis of this Bill and the others that I have mentioned is that the present Bill was produced without consultation, research or study. The ideas that it enshrines appear to have originated in the personal instincts of the present Secretary of State for Scotland. He announced the important proposals—I have a note of them—contained in the Bill and at the same time denounced the 1993 system all within a few months of taking office as Secretary of State.
I have spoken to many in the responsible services—the judiciary, the Parole Board, SACRO, the Howard League and even the police—and have been unable to discover anyone who was consulted by the Secretary of State before he first announced each new set of what were described as "proposals" or "decisions". Those who should have been consulted read of the Government's proposals or ultimate decisions in the Sun or Scottish Daily Mail, or read of their announcement to appreciative audiences at party political conferences or conferences of middle-ranking police officers. At one of these he claimed in a televised address, which was repeated on BBC Scotland last week, without reference to any evidence whatever, that the public were scandalised by judicial leniency.
The so-called consultation process following the White Paper which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, has mentioned, was a complete sham. Responses were required to be in within a few weeks. The almost unanimous and highly critical comments of judges and various interested bodies and others with great experience have been brushed aside. I believe that it is an outrage to treat the judicial, criminal and penal systems of Scotland in this arbitrary, ill-informed and populist fashion.
If Scotland is truly afflicted by judicial leniency, how is it that Scotland has the highest per capita prison population in western Europe, with the sole exception of Northern Ireland? Further, the prison population of Scotland is proportionately much higher than that of England and Wales. Yet, in a bizarre twist, when one looks at the Crime (Sentences) Bill applicable to England and Wales one sees in Clause 22 a provision that is designed to ensure that after that Bill is enacted, no convicted person will serve any longer time in prison than he would have served if the provision had not been enacted. In other words, English judges are to be compelled, by statute, to reduce the sentences they pass so as to compensate for the reduction of remission contained in the Crime (Sentences) legislation. So much for the headline-catching promise that those who do the crime must do the time: Clause 22 of the English Bill reveals that that is an empty catchphrase and misleading rhetoric.
So the English judges are to be compelled to take specified steps to prevent the English prison population from rising as a result of the virtual abolition of parole. Yet for Scotland there is to be no equivalent of that clause. So the prison population of Scotland is bound to start rising as soon as this Bill takes effect. The result is
216
bound to be that Scotland's prison population will come to exceed that of England and Wales to an even greater extent, proportionately, than it does now.
Not only do we have the largest per capita prison population (Northern Ireland excepted), but in answer to my Parliamentary Question, the Government admit that Scottish prisons are already seriously overcrowded. I need not add to the statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned. Given those facts, I expressly invite the Minister when he comes to reply to confirm or deny the view that the judiciary in Scotland is to be criticised for leniency and that its leniency is scandalising—the word used by the Secretary of State. Does he say that judicial leniency causes public scandal in Scotland? If so, upon what is that assertion based?
The average cost of keeping a prisoner in a Scottish gaol for one year, according to the Government's answer to my Parliamentary Question, exceeds, £26,000. That is the same amount of money as it costs to put a full-time policeman on the beat. The proposal in the Bill will, according to the explanatory memorandum, increase the annual prison population by some 2,200 places—a 40 per cent. increase in the prison population. It will cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, remarked, according to the explanatory memorandum, an extra £65 million to £100 million per year at current prices.
For that expenditure we could provide an extra 2,500 policemen or even build one new royal yacht every year, and still have £5 million to £40 million left over. That would make much more sense in terms of reducing unemployment and the causes of crime, particularly if those royal yachts were to be built on the banks of the Clyde. If they were not needed for the designed purpose, they could be used as prison ships to house the rising prison population as is proposed for England. More seriously, it would make infinitely more sense to put 2,000 more policemen on the streets to prevent crime and to detect it than to warehouse another 2,000 men or women in our already seriously overcrowded gaols.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that the Bill must be seen as an overall package. I shall accept that invitation. I therefore turn to a vitally important consequence of the Bill which appears to have escaped public attention and the so-called detailed scrutiny in another place. I have read that scrutiny, and it is not a description with which I entirely agree.
Clause 1 of the present Bill compels the High Court of Justiciary to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on an offender if he commits one of the specified offences and is convicted in the High Court. The list of offences is contained in what is described as Schedule 5A of the 1995 Act. Many of those offences, and the vast majority in terms of actual numbers brought to court, can be prosecuted either in the High Court or in the sheriff court. It follows that if a person is prosecuted and convicted in the High Court for his second such offence, he will have to be sent to prison for life. If, however, he is prosecuted in the sheriff court, which is an option, he does not have to be sent to prison for life. Who then is it who determines in which court he will be prosecuted? The answer is the Lord Advocate and

217
his staff, including Crown counsel, assisted by the procurators fiscal. They and they alone decide in which court to indict an accused, except in the case of rape.
Before I spell out the extreme importance of this matter, perhaps I may draw attention to Clause 12 which is the clause, as your Lordships have been told, that gives a sheriff in respect of any case brought on indictment in the sheriff's court the power to send a person convicted to prison for up to five years. At the present time the maximum sentence is three years. To complete the analysis it is necessary now to look at Part III of the Bill which deals with release. The effect of the provisions in Chapter I of this part of the Bill is to abolish the current system of parole under which a person is released after half his sentence if his sentence was less than four years, and after two thirds of his sentence if it exceeded four years.
Accordingly, what is the effective power of a sheriff at the present time? The effective power is to put a person in prison for 18 months. Under the new Bill, taken along with the abolition of the 1993 parole system, his power is to sentence a person to remain in prison for 50 months. In other words, his effective power is increased by—not to—178 per cent. The effective power of a sheriff to put a person in prison is increased by more than two and a half times. I cannot find in the explanatory memorandum any prediction as to the effect of the distribution of cases between the High Court and the sheriff court, but it seems extremely likely that many cases which are now routinely indicted with the High Court, including cases which contain charges listed in the new Schedule 5A, will be indicted in the sheriff court.
The choice as to in which court to indict a case is made in secret by the Lord Advocate and his staff. There is no possibility of reviewing that choice. The decisions of the Lord Advocate in relation to this matter—namely, in which court a case is to be indicted—are not open to review by any court, by Parliament or otherwise. The decisions are taken in secret and the reasoning is not disclosed afterwards. The Lord Advocate is not accountable to anyone for them; not to the courts and not to Parliament. If one asks the Lord Advocate questions about these decisions he simply declines to answer on the ground that his reasoning in decisions is not open to scrutiny.
Accordingly, the total effect of these various provisions when read together as a package is that an enormous power is conferred upon the Lord Advocate and his staff to be exercised in secret and without any possibility whatever of scrutiny by the courts or anyone else. That means that when the Lord Advocate or the Crown counsel decide to indict a person for an assault of the kind listed in new Schedule 5A, or robbery with a firearm, or any of the other offences, it will be he and he alone who decides whether the accused is to be sent for trial in the High Court and thus to face the possibility of a sentence of life imprisonment.
He can decide to send him to the sheriff court. Let us think for a moment what that means. The prosecutor is given an extremely powerful tool with which to plea bargain on American lines. He can frighten the defence
218
with indictment in the High Court unless the accused offers to plead guilty in the sheriff court. At the present time, sentencing is done by judges in open court and their sentences can be reviewed in the High Court of Justiciary sitting as a criminal appeal court. But everything that the judges do in relation to sentencing is done openly and reasons are publicly given.
The combined effect of the various provisions to which I have referred will be to turn a public, accountable and reviewable system into a secret, unappealable and inscrutable one. The transfer of such power from the public courts acting in public and accountable to prosecutors who act in private and are not accountable will be enormous. I regard the combined effect of these provisions as being utterly reprehensible. They are revolutionary in effect. Their overall effect has not been commented upon by any commentator that I have managed to discover.
The provisions have not been preceded by a study and there is no consultation paper in which anyone has been asked to comment upon this feature of the combination of several provisions in the Bill. The consequences are to Americanise the criminal justice system by transferring enormous power from the courts to the prosecution. It is a sad day for Scotland that our criminal justice system should be treated in this fashion. It is deeply regrettable that opposition political parties have failed to notice that point or have preferred to pass over it.
Perhaps I may turn to a separate point. For the first time in our history, except in relation to murder, the discretion of High Court judges in relation to sentencing for common law crimes is to be removed. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is aware of an interesting piece of information which I can now disclose to the House. The High Court in Glasgow is currently being extended and magnificent new courts are being constructed adjacent to the old building in the old mortuary. The vast public entrance is to be decorated in what appears to be a most beautiful fashion by displaying lovely stonework quotations from three texts. They include words from the Wisdom of Solomon, words taken from the writings of the philosopher David Hume, and words from his relative, Baron Hume, the father of Scots criminal law. The words of Baron Hume, which will appear there for all to read as they enter and leave the court, include the following:
"the determining of the proper punishment of a crime when proved… is left… to the discretion of the Judge".
If the Government have their way and Part I of the present Bill is enacted, the discretion of the judge in a most material respect will be removed for the first time in relation to our common law offences. I wonder whether the public entering the new court in July will be able to decide whether the hypocrisy lay in choosing those words to decorate the new court or in enacting legislation to make a mockery of this fundamental principle of Scottish sentencing practice and policy.
I have drawn attention to the shift of power from the courts to the prosecutors. Perhaps I may point to a further blow to the criminal justice system. It is struck by Part V of the Bill. The new provisions about legal aid are predicated upon an unproven assertion and

219
assumption that lawyers who provide legal aid services within the criminal justice system are somehow responsible for the increase in the cost of legal aid. I do not believe that that is so.
There are three main causes for that very regrettable rise. First, there is the steady increase in the crime rate. If you have more crime, you have more cases, and if you have more cases you spend more money on criminal legal aid. Secondly, there has been the enactment by Parliament since 1979 of 11 Acts of Parliament governing the criminal law and procedures in Scotland, resulting in huge increases in the amount of work required to prepare and present a case. Thirdly, I refer to the growing inefficiency of the operation of the Scottish criminal justice system which results in more adjournments, postponements and transfers of cases. Even the most trivial of cases can be called in court half a dozen times.
Perhaps I may quote to your Lordships the words of the leading authority on Scots criminal law and practice. He is not on the High Court, but he is probably the leading authority in the country as a whole. I refer to Sheriff Gordon who wrote in February of this year in an account of the five judge case of Gardner v Lees:
"Can I just repeat here my view that the present inefficient and uneconomic muddle, if not indeed shambles, which passes for summary procedure in many courts today … would not survive the most cursory cost-benefit analysis".
That gentleman has served on many of the most important committees, including the Sutherland Committee. He has been a sheriff for many years. He was a procurator fiscal. He has enormous experience and has written the main texts on Scottish criminal law. Just at the same time as the power of the prosecutor is to be increased, so the police are to be given new powers and the restrictions and bureaucratic obstacles of Part V are to be imposed on legal aid practitioners.
I should like to make many more points, but I have already used up my time. I have no doubt that this is the most revolutionary criminal justice Bill in Scotland since at least 1887. It grossly interferes with judicial discretion in relation to common law offences other than murder, for the first time. It effects a huge transfer of power from the courts to the prosecutors. It threatens the system whereby people can defend themselves against criminal charges—and yet, despite its importance, it has been preceded by no Royal Commission, no research, no pilot study and no realistic consultation. It is brought to this House within a few weeks of the calling of a general election. The Americanisation of our system in the run-up to that election is to take a great leap into the abyss, given the notorious failure of the American populist-inspired reforms.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said that he did not want to choose confrontation. I do not choose confrontation, but I find that with a Bill of this kind it is thrust upon me. The enactment of the main provision in this Bill would in my judgment inflict serious damage on our widely respected system of criminal justice without having any beneficial effect on
220
our crime rates. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on that. I hope that your Lordships will not give it an easy passage through this noble House.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I declare not so much an interest as a commitment to Scotland. It could hardly be otherwise with a Scots wife and with a home on the rolling Highlands once occupied by the ancestors of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. I have also had the benefit in my career of sitting in Glasgow and Edinburgh and learning at the feet of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, over a cup of tea, his knowledge of the criminal law. Therefore, I have no scruples in addressing your Lordships on this important matter.
Yesterday on the Welsh circuit I happened to be in a court presided over by a very distinguished and experienced judge, Sir Robin David, who was dealing with a number of drugs cases at first instance, on application. As I waited for my application to be heard, I listened to two contrasting drugs cases, both concerning Class A drugs. One was a plea of guilty by a defendant to the provision of a number of Ecstasy tablets to friends, for which he was sentenced to 120 hours of community service. The other case concerned a man who had been caught with 7.5 kilogrammes of heroin in the boot of his car on the local motorway, with a value well in excess of £1 million. There was simply no comparison between the two offences. So when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that the gravity of the case of the repeat drug offender cannot be exaggerated, I believe those words must have been written for him. I say that because I am sure from his own experience that the noble and learned Lord must know about the great disparities that exist between convictions of that type. That is only by way of an illustration of some of the problems which will arise if the Bill is enacted.
The war against crime is a serious and continuing battle, which this Government have been losing over the past 18 years. Between 1979 and 1995 the number of non-sexual crimes of violence in Scotland has increased from 10,025 to 21,119. That is more than a 100 per cent. increase. To fight that war there are, of course, limited resources and the issue for a responsible government is how those resources may best be spent. It might be thought that the emphasis should be on the prevention of crime; that is to say, to stop the crime which causes the distress and anguish to the victims about whom we are so much concerned.
Money should be spent on having more policemen on the beat, on modern equipment and on crime prevention schemes. According to the Scottish police, 24 per cent. more is spent in England and Wales per officer in capital expenditure and 16.5 per cent. more per officer in revenue expenditure than in Scotland. Why is that so? Why are resources being diverted away from the prevention of crime into the matters that are contained in the Bill? Resources should be spent on tackling the causes. Those causes are no doubt deep—for example, unemployment, poverty, poor housing, lack of parental control and other influences, including the

221
acquisitiveness and selfishness of the world in which we live. Our children are harried by drugs and alcohol and sexual imagery, and so on, and no doubt their values are distorted by such influences.
However, if it is too much to expect that a responsible government will tackle in a serious way the social problems which create the climate in which crime breeds, they should, at the very least, when they have them available, use resources to tackle the problems of the offender. I was very much struck by the expression used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he talked about the "demonising" of the criminal—that is, taking away from him the attributes of a human being and of a member of our society and treating him as a statistic, a statistic who can easily be locked up in the nearest prison or prison ship and forgotten about, thrown away and disregarded. What really should be done is to rehabilitate that person and bring him back into our society as a full and responsible member of it.
I share the disquiet so passionately and eloquently expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the reasons behind the Bill—wrecking, as he put it, the philosophy behind previous legislation, on which there had been so much consultation. On Second Reading in another place on 5th November the Secretary of State said:
"If the hon. Gentleman"—
that is, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Robertson—
"votes against the Bill tonight, we will harry him all the way to the election and beyond, and tell the people of Scotland that he was not prepared to give them the protection to which they are entitled from sexual and violent offenders who repeatedly carry out villainous crimes in Scotland".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/96; col. 1048.]
That is rhetorical rubbish and it is the basis of the policy which has been expressed through the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about this Bill being formulated as part of a political campaign. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to its flag-waving flavour. It is a reversal of priorities when this Government, under the influence of electoral necessity, cast around for someone to blame for their failure to tackle the problems of crime in this country. The judges, apparently, are so failing in their responsibilities that they have to be told what to do. Their discretion in sentencing matters has to be taken away from them.
I say to the Government that it is dangerous to attack the trust that people have in the judiciary and in the criminal justice system of this country. It is a pillar of the constitution of this country that judges act impartially and in a judicial fashion. The White Paper Protecting the Public, the Government's Strategy on Crime in England and Wales in April of last year critically observed that in 1994 of the 3,121 people who were convicted of offences which under the English provisions would merit a life sentence 65 per cent. received a custodial sentence and 35 per cent. a non-custodial sentence. Under the provisions of the English legislation they would all have received a mandatory life sentence.
222
Is it seriously to be suggested that in every one of those 1,000 or so cases the sentencing judge was so wildly wrong that he failed in the duty that he had been trained to perform? Life sentences, said the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in introducing this Bill, were the only appropriate sentences in those cases. But by whose standards of justice and fairness are they the only appropriate sentences? Are they the standards of Mr. Michael Howard or, in Scotland, of Mr. Michael Forsyth? What training do they have? What balancing of court cases, between various defendants and the various completely different circumstances that arise in criminal cases have they undertaken which permits them to say that the collective view of the judiciary who have spent their lives and their careers in close contact with the courts is wrong? Have Mr. Forsyth's personal instincts—to borrow the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—been substituted for the collective wisdom of the judges and the professionals, not just the legal profession but all those who are engaged in our criminal justice system?
There is a demand for honesty in sentencing yet Clause 1 of this Bill enshrines dishonesty and gives it statutory form. A person is to be sentenced to life imprisonment. Everyone knows that that is not what will happen, nor what is intended. What is intended is an indeterminate sentence which will leave it to some future arm of government—the Parole Board or someone else—to decide whether a person is safe to be let loose in the community.
There is some confusion of thought here. Is this mandatory life imprisonment to be imposed because a person actually is a danger to the community in the first place? No, that does not have to be established at all. A person is to be automatically assumed to be a danger to the public if he or she has committed these two offences we have discussed. Many instances have been given by your Lordships of the injustices that will arise if a person is convicted at an early age of some offence that qualifies, and then many years later is convicted again.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says that there is a serious risk in every case where a person has committed the two offences named in the Bill. I, too, share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about the phrase "exceptional circumstances". I was interested in his analysis. He asked whether the name of the offence was sufficient in the previous qualifying offence. Does one look into the circumstances of that previous offence; or does one accept it at face value? If one does not look into the circumstances, and does not consider exceptional circumstances in the light of a previous qualifying offence, what about the age at which the previous offence was committed? What about the results of the previous offence? I prosecuted a lady who had killed her husband with a hammer. She received an absolute discharge on a manslaughter conviction because the circumstances were so overwhelmingly in her favour and everyone understood why she had done what she did.

223
If there is injustice in the criminal justice system, what shall we have? As has been said, we shall have plea bargaining, choice of court, choice of offence, and reduction of the charge brought. We shall have defendants fighting cases to which they would otherwise plead guilty. As the Women Against Rape organisation emphasised, in rape cases victims are in danger of being killed if they are the only witnesses to the offence.
Those are positive disadvantages. But, above all, the disadvantage that arises out of injustice is the loss of confidence in the system by the public. If people perceive a lack of fairness, and a lack of justice, and they lose confidence in our system, what do we have? We shall have juries who will not convict, witnesses who will not co-operate, and families who will not name their relatives as people who have committed crimes; and the whole system will be dragged down. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that this is a revolutionary Bill, he was right. This is a Bill for injustice and not for justice.
There is perhaps a case for an additional tool in the hands of the judiciary. There may be situations where an indeterminate sentence may be passed upon someone even though that person does not qualify for a life sentence in the ordinary way. If there is such a case for an indeterminate sentence, why do we not call it a public safety sentence rather than a life sentence? Let us not pretend it is something that it is not. If it is to be called a public safety sentence, and an indeterminate sentence is to be passed, let it be done in a clear statutory framework when the judge minded to pass such a sentence receives all the information he requires—the full detail of previous offences, commentaries from the probation service, medical reports, and so on.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, said, there is a role for the prosecution to play if a public safety indeterminate sentence is to be passed. But let us get rid of this fiction of a life sentence enshrined in the Bill. We have suffered long enough in murder cases, with all the qualifications required, the definitions involved, and the difficulties which juries have to face simply because there are mandatory life sentences. Let us get away from this concept. It is not consistent with modern judicial systems of this world.
I could refer to many other matters in the Bill. The hybrid sentence involved in the hospital direction will destroy the patient-doctor relationship. If you get better you go to prison. Who says that you are better?—your doctor. How can a patient in a psychiatric hospital have confidence in and follow the treatment prescribed for him by a psychiatrist who he knows is effectively his jailer who can determine whether or not he goes to prison? Earned early release will be dependent on the reports of prison officers on the landing. Either that becomes automatic, or it becomes potentially the greatest flashpoint imaginable within the prison system. Blackmail and favouritism would be involved in attempting to operate a system such as this.
As a Welshman, I have to say that my overwhelming feeling in listening to this debate is: why is it being held here? Why is it not being held in a devolved parliament
224
in Scotland where these issues can be properly thrashed out, where there would be full Benches and a press and media completely interested in what was happening? I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate agrees with me in that particular sentiment. If I misunderstood him, no doubt he will tell me later.
Could this Government get away with these proposals if the Scottish people were alive to what is intended and if this debate were taking place in Scotland? I venture to suggest that if people there were to think that English hereditary Peers were going to thrust this legislation through, and if they were to realise what it meant for Scotland, they would reject it. And they will reject it.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, this has been an important debate. In our terms it has been relatively short, but nevertheless of high quality. Although there may have been a nil-nil draw in Monaco this evening, here the Government have been right royally routed. We heard a series of speeches devastating in their effect. I mention merely those of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord McCluskey, and, as we just heard, that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. All in their different ways made a decisive contribution and critique of the Bill before the House. I also draw attention to the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We should give it special prominence, given the noble Earl's detailed experience of the workings of the Scottish prison system.
As the debate proceeded it became increasingly clear that the Bill is in many ways a bogus measure. In some ways it is deeply cynical; in others it is technically deficient and anomalous. Let us examine some of the main areas which noble Lords identified during the course of the debate.
Many noble Lords referred to the problem of automatic and minimum sentences—the restriction on judicial discretion. As was pointed out, are we somehow saying that it is all the fault of the judges? What is the evidence for that? In talking about automatic and minimum sentences, the Government raise the phrase, "exceptional circumstances". It is a phrase that most likely causes more trouble than it allays. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate needs to give some sort of answer and guidance on the issue of whether, for example, the circumstances of a previous offence should properly be taken into account. How will they be taken into account when the offence happened about 20 or 30 years ago?
Is another factor the period of time between offences where one offence was committed in a rush of blood to the head in adolescence and another due to temptation in—a stage dear to some of us—the mid-life crisis? Are those factors to be taken into account in deciding whether there is an exceptional circumstance? Again, there is the age of the individual when the offence was committed. Above all, would an exceptional circumstance arise where the imposition of an automatic or minimum sentence would, in the view of the judge, because of the lack of proportionality, be against the

225
interests of justice itself? Is that an exceptional circumstance? It seems to me that it is a critical and fundamental factor which should be taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Macaulay, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord McCluskey, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, as well as others, have drawn attention to the provision for early release. The comparison was made with the 1993 Act. But a much more worrying and wider comparison was made dealing with the whole provenance of the Bill and how, in the way it has evolved, it breaks the quite proper tradition of consultation, research and deliberation that in the past has underpinned the reform of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, the Bill is the product of no study, no research and of very little consultation. Where there has been consultation, the decision of the Secretary of State and the Government has often been in the opposite direction from the weight of the evidence they have received.
Let us go back to the 1993 Act following the Kincraig Committee proceedings. We come to the simple but basic point: what is the evidence? We are talking about a Criminal Justice Bill, so it is right to ask about evidence. What is the empirical evidence that the provisions of the 1993 Act have not worked? We deserve to be told. The case has not been made in another place nor, so far, here tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, focused attention on how the proposals for early release, coupled with the increase in the prison population, would affect the management of the Prison Service. In a way that is where the deep cynicism about the Bill lies. Basically the Government seem—I put it no stronger than that in this case—to have little concern about how the measures will impact on the Prison Service and the management of the prisons.
Let us take two points. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated, the business of earned early release will be the subject of a recommendation, a decision, a judgment, made on the landing, to all intents and purposes. That is fundamentally wrong because, for a start, it puts the individual prison officer in a position of great vulnerability. If there is an extremely desperate and dangerous criminal with unpleasant friends on the outside, think of the vulnerability of the prison officer in that situation.
That is on the one hand. On the other, the system is set up basically in a way which cannot avoid the charge of favouritism or vindictiveness. That is wrong. We are setting up a system which is almost guaranteed to result in an explosion within the prisons. The Government seem to have little or no concern.
Also, of course, there is the movement from parole, by which 50 per cent. of the sentence was served in the community—let us make that clear—to earned remission, by which it is one-sixth. I ask noble Lords to consider what effect that will have on the management of prisons. With basically so little to gain, will some difficult and dangerous prisoners give indications of
226
good behaviour? Will not the reduction of earned remission as a management tool be a proper management tool that the Prison Service no longer has available to it? In order to overcome that difficulty, there is an overwhelming case for some kind of independent review body to be involved in the determination of early release. We have one, in many ways. It is called the Parole Board. That is being swept aside.
Let us look at tagging. The Bill we are considering tonight differs from the Bill that was first published in another place. The Bill before us tonight would allow the tagging of young people under the age of 16. When that possibility was raised in another place, the Minister made a great point of saying that consultation was taking place and that the Government were not committed to it. They wanted to hear what people had to say. They went out to the appropriate interests and apparently received 102 responses. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate how many were in favour of extending tagging to the under-16s? Perhaps he would answer that. I shall just give to other noble Lords—he will know them—a flavour of some of those responses. These are from radical, dangerous, Left-wing, liberal interest groups. There is the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. It said:
"The overwhelming view was very much against the concept … for younger children. Tagging would hugely divert attention from the positive purposes of supervision. Far from being the solution to the problem, supervision becomes the problem itself".
There is that other well known, dangerous, liberal, seditious, subversive body, the Scottish Police Federation.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow but I detect that he is reading from the Official Report of another place, which I recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminding the House the other night was not appropriate.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his offer of help and guidance. I shall continue. The Scottish Police Federation said:
"At this time, we do not believe that electronic tagging would be appropriate to supervision requirements for young people under 16. We do not believe that electronic tagging would be a positive incentive to a child to demonstrate greater responsibility and self-control".
So it goes on. We wait to hear from the noble and learned Lord as to who was in fact in favour of tagging for the under-16s.
Another loss as a result of the Bill—it was referred to by many noble Lords who contributed to the debate—is that of supervision. The opportunity for supervision has been weakened. I believe that the point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. In some cases supervision will only be possible if the court decides it at the time of sentencing. That is surely a weakness because the judgment should really be made, and can really better be made, when the individual has reached the end of the custodial period and it can

227
actually be shown that actually shows that supervision is supposed to be a supportive, reformist and beneficial measure in itself.
There are many things in the Bill which require further deliberation. In particular the whole business of the hospital orders has been referred to. I will not go into them tonight but it is an issue that is likely to cause great concern and worry to a number of noble Lords. However, the Bill we have tonight is, in some ways, slightly better than the Bill that was originally published in another place. There is much to do and, as we proceed in Committee, we will try to improve upon it further.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, this has been a useful debate and has demonstrated the value of having a revising Chamber. I can therefore pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about imagining this debate taking place in Scotland. The fact of the matter is that it would never take place in Scotland if the proposals of the noble Lord's party and of the party opposite were to be implemented, because the only Chamber that would look at a Bill of this nature would be the elected Chamber.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that a devolved Parliament would have the time and the concern to deal in detail with all the provisions of this Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have no doubt that a devolved Parliament would have that time, but if the noble Lord had read the reports of the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, I defy him to suggest that the other place did not have sufficient time to sit and deliberate over this Bill line by line, clause by clause. As I will remark in a moment or two, it is abundantly obvious from the noble Lord's speech and indeed those made by noble Lords opposite that the two main Opposition parties are seeking now to take a different position from that taken by their colleagues representing the respective parties in another place.
To return to the point that the noble Lord raised, debate would not be possible in Scotland if his party's policies were put into operation. It would also not be possible in Scotland to allow members of the senior judiciary, either sitting in Scotland or who have formerly sat in Scotland, to participate in such a debate. So it may well be that on further reflection the noble Lord will feel that his reference to what may or may not happen in the future in Scotland was not a particularly happy one.
I welcome the support which many clauses of the Bill have received from various quarters of the House. Many detailed comments have been made in the speeches which have been carefully prepared. I will endeavour to answer some of them this evening, but it would clearly be impractical to answer them all. However, I undertake that where appropriate they will be answered by letter and certainly they will all be considered before this Bill reaches its next stages.
228
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, drew attention to the fact that during the years that he was Lord Justice General in Scotland, it was the practice for the Government, the senior judiciary, those who work in the courts and those interested or involved in any way with the criminal justice system, to work together. He asserted, and I agree with him, that that was one fact which contributed to the high regard in which sheriffs and judges are generally held in Scotland. I reject completely the suggestion that that co-operation has broken down. Undoubtedly the publication of certain responses by senior judges to the White Paper published by the Secretary of State provoked a measure of media attention, media attention which in many respects I personally regret. For the fact of the matter is that that co-operation not only continues but has been developed since the present Secretary of State assumed office. As noble Lords will be aware, he has set up the Scottish Criminal Justice Forum, in which a senator of the College of Justice sits as a member as do two sheriffs and many others involved in the criminal justice system. That body has already met. It has begun to address one of the issues which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, addressed—the problem of adjournment—and it is a practical example of how consultation and co-operation continue even if there may be differences of opinion as to what falls to be enacted in primary legislation in Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that he had no objection in constitutional terms to Parliament restricting the discretion of judges but that the counterpart of that was that it fell upon the Government to show leadership and to consult and listen to advice. If noble Lords consider the detail of what has been said during the debate it may be possible to take the view that following advice applies only if it comes from those who are actively involved in the criminal justice system but does not apply if it involves listening to members of the public and the victims of crime. I suggest that if one sits back and thinks about it that may explain why there was so much co-operation in another place on the part of the elected representatives of the various parties to give the Bill the fair wind that it undoubtedly received.
While I welcome the participation in our deliberations of noble Lords who are senior members of the judiciary, I regret to say that I personally could not conceal my regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, sought to attack the Bill in the terms that he did. He has served uniquely among those who have spoken in the debate not only as a member of the senior judiciary in Scotland for many years but as a former Advocate Depute and a former Law Officer in Scotland. He is uniquely qualified to contribute to our discussions. I sincerely hope that when the Bill reaches consideration in Committee it may prove possible for him to moderate both the terms and the tone of any criticisms he seeks to advance.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord would refrain from making personal remarks and reply to any of the points that I made, I should appreciate it very much.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am happy to do that. Perhaps I may now accelerate a point

229
which I intended to make later. When discussing the terms of Clause 1 the noble and learned Lord drew attention to what he alleged was a transfer of discretion to the Lord Advocate and sought—I hope he will forgive this term—to ridicule the Government's proposals by quoting from what Baron Hume said and what I understood to be engraved in the new Glasgow High Court building. Perhaps I may quote Baron Hume back to the noble and learned Lord in describing the Lord Advocate's role under reference to the sentencing process:
"The Lord Advocate is master of his instance … even after he has brought his libel into court, it is a matter at his discretion, to what extent or effect he will insist against the pannel—
the old Scottish term for the accused person—
"and he may freely, at any period of the process … restrict his libel to an arbitrary punishment, in the clearest case even of a capital crime".
He goes on to give an example.
"There was an instance…in the case of John Lyle who, in consequence, had sentence of transportation only though convicted of highway robbery—[a capital offence]. This restriction was made in consideration of…circumstances known to the public prosecutor".
In the same passage, Baron Hume referred to the,
"great confidence reposed in the Lord Advocate".
If the noble and learned Lord's concern is that the Lord Advocate of the day, through the exercise of his discretion as to the court in which proceedings will be taken involving qualifying offences has more say over whether a convicted person receives a life sentence from the sentencing judge, it may be sensible to pay attention to what Baron Hume had said and to his description of the extent to which the Lord Advocate has a power in the past and at present to limit the sentence which a judge can impose.
The law may have changed since Baron Hume's day, but even now there rests within the discretion of the Lord Advocate a power to influence or to determine the extent of sentence. From time to time in every year every Lord Advocate has to take decisions as to whether to insist on a charge of murder or depart from it and accept a charge of culpable homicide thereby giving the sentencing judge a wider discretion. The noble and learned Lord has exercised that discretion himself in the past. It is nothing new. It is one of the important constitutional principles that underpins the Scottish criminal justice system.
It may help to make progress if I do not deal in any great detail with some of the other comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I undertake to read them again, but I find it difficult to depart from the comments to which he takes exception.
Perhaps I may move on to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, which were clearly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Both made it clear that this Bill cannot expect the smooth passage in this House that it received in another place. One can only watch and wait so far as concerns that matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord. Is he referring to me or to the noble and learned Lord, Lord
230
McCluskey? The noble and learned Lord referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, if I did so, it is an error on my part. It has been brought about by the lateness of the hour. I apologise.
The words of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, as I noted them, were that there was no guarantee that this Bill will receive the smooth passage in this House that it did in another place. The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, were put in a slightly different way, but clearly signal a significant change. We await with interest to see what amendments come from that quarter.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate aware that all the comments that I made in my speech are grounded in the points made in the previous debate by my colleagues in another place? The Lord Advocate is trying to be mischievous. He is trying to drive a wedge. There is no wedge: there is not even a cigarette paper between myself and my colleagues in another place.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, with great respect, I find that virtually impossible to accept. I have seen the amendments tabled by the noble Lord's party in connection with the Committee stage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. On the basis of what has been said this evening by speakers on the Benches opposite, I expect to see similar amendments to this Bill. If they were not tabled in another place, I find it impossible to understand how there has not been a change of position. As I have said, I am content to wait and see. It may be that, for the purposes of making progress, noble Lords might find it advantageous to listen to my remarks, which inevitably have to cover a number of points in a comparatively short period of time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, raised important issues to do with the cross-Border implications of the Bill. As he correctly said, he raised these matters in connection with the Crime (Sentences) Bill. Action has been taken to address them, and I am very sympathetic to the idea of doing something similar here. Like other noble Lords, he raised important issues about the approach required to be taken to the application of the provisions relating to exceptional circumstances.
The Government's position is that it would unnecessarily trammel the discretion of the court to provide further specification on the face of the Bill of what would or would not constitute exceptional circumstances. The noble and learned Lord made detailed points on which I will certainly reflect before Committee stage. The policy, as clearly explained in another place and as enshrined in the Bill, is that it is for the court to determine where exceptional circumstances apply which may lead to a particular judge deciding not to impose an automatic or minimum sentence in a particular case. But this matter merits further consideration, and I undertake that that shall be carried out.

231
I have already adverted to the discretion of the public prosecutor. This matter was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I believe that both noble Lords suggested that prosecutors might be encouraged by the provisions of the Bill to do a variety of things. First, it was said that they might charge a less serious type of offence than would currently merit prosecution in the sheriff court when they might not otherwise do so. It was said that they might in some way threaten an accused person that if he did not tender a plea in the sheriff court he would be indicted in the High Court. It was suggested that in a variety of ways the Lord Advocate and his deputes, who include the Solicitor General for Scotland, might seek to circumvent the will of Parliament. I resist unequivocally the suggestion that the Lord Advocate would do such a thing. Of course, he has the discretion described by Baron Hume in the passage I have already quoted, but the suggestion that the Lord Advocate of the day would act improperly to circumvent the provisions of the Bill and thereby avoid any unfairness that an individual prosecutor might perceive is one that I resist. I hope that on further reflection noble Lords will accept that that is not a valid criticism of the Government's legislative proposals.
I turn briefly to deal with two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde. He referred to the increased sentencing powers of the sheriff court and how they might give rise to inconsistency. He drew attention to the existing power that a sheriff had to remit. While undoubtedly the power to remit exists, it is not one that is always used. While it would always be open to the Lord Advocate to challenge by an appeal a sentence imposed by a sheriff and suggest that he should have remitted the accused after conviction, I venture to suggest that it would be very difficult for the Lord Advocate to satisfy the Appeal Court that the sentence imposed required to be a High Court sentence if the case had not been indicted in the High Court in the first place. Since this matter was last considered, sentencing guidelines have come along. The Secretary of State recently announced the introduction of a more formal system of judicial training in Scotland, making resources available to the judiciary to conduct training as it deems appropriate. Those developments, plus the local knowledge which sheriffs can undoubtedly bring to bear on local cases, have persuaded the Government that there is merit in increasing their sentencing powers.
The noble and learned Lord referred also to the provisions in Clause 20. I have already dealt with that to some extent. He stressed the importance of the prosecution playing an active part in the sentencing procedure. To some extent, that is a development which is already taking place, because, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware, the Appeal Court in Scotland has already held that if the prosecutor does not seek to correct any factual statement made by the defence with which it does not agree while the
232
sentencing procedure is taking place in front of the trial court, then it is held bound to accept what the defence position was, irrespective of what its own information may be.
I shall move on to the implications for the prison system of the Government's proposals. A number of noble Lords have spoken about Scotland having one of the highest prison populations. Certainly, when expressed as a rate per head of population, there is substance in that comment. However, an alternative approach is to compare the prison population with the level of recorded crime. If that approach is adopted, then a different picture emerges. On the basis of the latest published information, which relates to 1995, we find that Scotland's rate of imprisonment is lower than that of many other European countries. Indeed, out of 14 other countries for which equivalent data are available, eight have higher rates than in Scotland, so it may be that there is not quite the force in that line of criticism as noble Lords might first have expected.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, stressed the importance of rehabilitation. That is a policy which the Government support, and support in the Bill. The structure of the early-release provisions will reward prisoners who co-operate with programmes in prison which seek to address their offending problems and any drug problems that they may have. It cannot be denied that that must have a beneficial effect on rehabilitation. Equally, supervised release orders, seeking to target those who are most in need of supervision, also go along that line.
Some question has been raised about the additional resources which may be required if the sentencing provisions have the effect of increasing the prison population. Reference was made to the fact that the English Bill has a clause which requires the English courts to take account of the new provisions when imposing sentence. That was another matter upon which the Government consulted fully in bringing forward this legislation. The then Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross, said in his reply to the consultation paper:
"A judge when imposing sentence selects the sentence which is appropriate for the offence and for the offender and he does not take into account when doing so that the prisoner may be released before he has served the full sentence".
He referred to certain case law in support of that view. I know that similar consultation took place with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he was Lord Justice General.
As a matter of law, the situation is different in England and Wales. That has been the position since at least 1992 when the then Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction on how sentencing should be approached under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It is therefore not surprising that the Crime (Sentences) Bill proceeds on English experience. As a clear answer to one of the criticisms made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the fact that there is no similar provision in the Scottish Bill proceeds from the results of consultation with the two senior judges sitting in Scotland at that time. If it leads to an increase in the prison population the Government are committed to

233
making those resources available. The provisions will not be brought into force until the prison system is able to deal with the situation.
I turn to the issue of tagging of under 16 year-olds. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, if I did not fully understand the guidance given to the House the other night by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Having listened to the rest of what the noble Lord quoted, it was obvious that he misunderstood the purpose of the consultation exercise to which he referred. I hope that he will not take exception to that remark. The consultation exercise to which he referred concerned a suggestion that tagging should become a condition of a supervision requirement, which, as he knows, is not imposed by the courts but by the Children's Hearing. As he correctly mentioned, various people in Scotland, whether Left-wing, Right-wing or in the centre, opposed that proposal. The Government listened to those responses and have no plans to introduce tagging as a condition of a supervision requirement. That is a good example of how the consultation process continues and is working.
The noble Lord may also know that in Scotland people under the age of 16 are prosecuted only on the express authority of the Lord Advocate. It is a very, very rare occurrence indeed. Normally when it occurs it is for a very serious crime and the issue of tagging is unlikely to arise. However, where there is an exceptional prosecution there may be an exceptional case where tagging would be appropriate. No doubt any sheriff or High Court judge seeking to impose the appropriate order would think long and hard about the family circumstances of the individual and any other relevant personal circumstances before imposing such an order and having it surveyed by electronic tagging.
I turn to the issue of legal aid. Despite the criticisms of the Government's proposals which have come from many quarters, there is widespread recognition that there is a concern about the increase in legal aid. Part of it may be caused by the problems of managing the criminal courts of Scotland. The Criminal Justice Forum is one practical way of dealing with such a problem. However, there may be others, and having a good hard look at the criminal legal aid scheme is one. That, too, is a matter which those participating in the Criminal Justice Forum, which includes defence solicitors and a member of the Faculty of Advocates who has previously served as an advocate depute but now acts as a defence counsel in the High Court, are perfectly willing to address.
A number of points were made about the code of practice and a number of criticisms were advanced with the support of or on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the Faculty of Advocates, the other branch of the profession in Scotland, has been fairly supportive of a number of proposals. I look forward to dealing with them in detail in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Balfour, in his usual inimitable manner, put forward some technical and interesting points about the Bill as currently framed.
234
It may be a difficult Bill to follow, but attempting to do so is much helped by the consolidation of criminal procedure legislation which took place in 1995. I intend to write to my noble friend to respond to the detailed points that he made. If my answer does not provide satisfaction, we can no doubt meet, as we met in connection with previous Bills, to seek to resolve those matters.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I have listened to many noble and learned Lords speaking tonight and their refrain has been the question of why the previous legislation, which was so carefully thought out, has been discarded. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has touched on that major question.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the previous legislation has been departed from or "discarded", if the noble Lord prefers to use that word, because it is quite clear to those who follow the public's reaction to these matters that it has contributed to a loss of confidence in the sheriffs and the judiciary. Suggestions from the Benches opposite indicate that that may be incorrect; I venture to suggest that it is correct and that it is one of the reasons why elected Members of all parties in another place did not seek to oppose the Bill.
Members of the public do not understand that if prisoners are sentenced to eight or 10 years in prison, if they keep themselves out of trouble they may have a good prospect of being released in four or five years or certainly a year or so thereafter. Members of the public do not accept that. That is one of the reasons why, when the responses of the noble and learned Lords who were consulted about our proposals in the White Paper were made public, many people criticised them, and did so publicly. That criticism was issued either by the media or by people using the media.
The Government believe that if this matter is approached sensibly, as we believe that it is now being approached, it offers the prospect of restoring confidence in the criminal justice system, whereas the present system of half-time sentencing—if that is the term that one wants to use—does not. That is the basic 'reason for the proposals. It is a reason on which I shall be happy to elaborate if amendments are tabled at a later stage to seek to challenge the structure of the current proposals.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate answer one question? He talks about judges and others criticising this in public. Does he not understand that what happened was that those who submitted responses to the Green Paper or to the White Paper sent them to a named address at the Scottish Office and that that person or office at the Scottish Office made them available to anyone who chose to have copies? I obtained copies of the responses simply by telephoning or writing to that address on each occasion. It was then that the

235
press, having got hold of the matter, chose to make the responses public. Surely, the Lord Advocate will agree that those are the facts.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I do not demur from that for a moment. I am not making any criticism of noble Lords for making this public. The consultation paper made it clear that any responses would be made public unless the consultee chose not to have that done, as occasionally happens when members of the judiciary respond to public consultation documents of that nature. There is no criticism of the noble Lord for making it public. What happened thereafter and whether anybody is to blame or is responsible for it is neither here nor there.
The noble and learned Lord will read the Scottish papers, as I do, and what happened thereafter was that many sections of the public criticised the Scottish judges for the leniency of their sentencing. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but he cannot have been reading the Scottish papers in recent months if
236
he is not aware of the Scottish judges being criticised in those papers and in the media for their sentencing. I do not welcome that development, but what I say in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is that one way of seeking to reduce such criticism is to have a closer relationship between the time spent in custody and the time imposed by the sentencing judge or sheriff. That is one of the main reasons that has persuaded the Government to introduce proposals which will fulfil that policy.
In conclusion, I thank again those who have spoken. I do not know the time by convention for a speech in a Second Reading debate, but it is obvious that many noble Lords have put a great deal of preparation into the speeches that they have delivered. Those speeches will certainly assist the House and the Government when preparing for the Committee stage of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.

  Prisoners in Hospital: Use of Restraints
  Prisoners in Hospital: Use of Restraints
  Prisoner in Addenbrooke's Hospital:Use of Restraints
  Prisoner in Addenbrooke's Hospital:Use of Restraints
  Police Bill, Part III: Amendments
  Police Bill, Part III: Amendments
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  VAT and Repairs to Buildings
  VAT and Repairs to Buildings
  VAT: EC Provisions
  VAT: EC Provisions
  Forestry Commission Research Agency:Framework Document
  Forestry Commission Research Agency:Framework Document
  Space Use: Management and Planning
  Space Use: Management and Planning
  NATO Command Structure
  NATO Command Structure
  MoD Housing: Sale Proceeds
  MoD Housing: Sale Proceeds
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  EC Human Rights Commission Report: Greece v. UK
  EC Human Rights Commission Report: Greece v. UK
  World Bank: Yacyreta Project
  World Bank: Yacyreta Project
  Liberia: UN Arms Embargo Enforcement
  Liberia: UN Arms Embargo Enforcement
  Public Record Office Prior Options Review
  Public Record Office Prior Options Review