Sitting of 21 January 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]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 28 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Capitation Funding (Nottingham Health Authority)
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of capitation funding the Nottingham health authority will receive in 1997–98. [10356]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): In 1997–98, Nottingham health authority will receive an integrated allocation of £285.6 million—a cash increase over this year of £12.1 million.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister confirm that, under the capitation formula, Nottingham will next year receive a growth in funding of 0.34 per cent. over this year? Given that fact, will it not take another seven years for it to reach 100 per cent. formula funding? The Queen's medical centre has not carried out non-urgent operations since November. Should not Nottingham people and Nottingham health services receive a fair share of the cake?
    Mr. Horam: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I note that Sir David White, the chairman of Nottingham health authority, said that Nottingham's funding in the next year is in line with that authority's proposals for development, and that
    "Due to a better than expected national settlement for the NHS and the case put forward by the authority … I am happy to say that the prospects for the development of our local services—and the maintenance of excellence—looks more certain for next year."
    While I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, we can offer him much faster progress in seven years. The hon. Gentleman should be worrying about the Labour Government after the next general election. Will they be able to maintain the progress that we have made in the past 18 years?
    Sir Jim Lester: Does my hon. Friend understand that those of us who seek the return of a Conservative Government recognise that both parties acknowledge that
    724
    Nottingham needs the additional money? The settlement is a step in the right direction, but it is only one step and we want considerably more money, year on year, to restore us to the correct position of parity with other similar teaching areas.
    Mr. Horam: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), he has got a far better deal out of this Government than he will ever get out of a Labour Government. Progress was made last year and this year, and will be made next year—if a Conservative Government are re-elected, funding for health authorities will ensure that progress is made in every year to come. I am sure that my hon. Friend looks forward to the re-election of a Conservative Government.

    National Health Service Funding
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Centre for Policy Studies concerning the future funding of the national health service. [10357]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I have received no such representations.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister confirm that a pamphlet recently issued by the Centre for Policy Studies, the author of which was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Health, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that future policy on the NHS should involve the introduction of top-up fees and vouchers? Does not that show that it is now undeniable that a Conservative Government serving their fifth term would abolish the national health service as we know it and as its founders intended it to be?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks me about the future funding of the national health service. The Government's policy on that is set out not by the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, but by the Prime Minister. He set it out clearly at the Conservative party conference, when he laid down a challenge, which the Labour Front Bench has so far refused to take up. A re-elected Conservative Government will increase real-terms funding for the health service through the life of the next Parliament, year by year by year by year by year. When will we hear from Labour Front Benchers how they will match that pledge?
    Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Centre for Policy Studies document "A Conservative Agenda" congratulated the Government on their record of increasing NHS funding since 1979? Does he agree that it is only against a background of guaranteed financial growth throughout the next Parliament that the NHS can continue to thrive?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The CPS made another suggestion—that we should abolish the regional health authorities. The Government have already done so and delivered as a result £100 million of administrative savings. That was done over the opposition of Labour's Front Benchers, who would be taken a great

    725
    deal more seriously on the question of administrative savings if they ever voted for one, instead of voting against them.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State and I probably agree that the health service needs more money, although we would disagree about how much. I would argue for more than he would and both he and I would argue for more than the Labour party would.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where did the hon. Gentleman get that line from?
    Mr. Hughes: From Labour's figures.
    Laying that argument to one side for the moment, will the Secretary of State accept that there is one area on which we can agree immediately—that, for one year, we could halt all closures while an independent body such as the King's Fund assessed demand and supply in the health service, so that we could at least agree on the facts before returning to the debate about money?
    Mr. Dorrell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it is in the interests of the health service or, most important, its patients to freeze the development of the health service. We need to have a service that uses a growing budget, year by year, to deliver improving service to patients. That is the commitment that the present Government give. The commitment given by the Opposition is that they invite patients and the health service to rely on the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who told Pulse,
    "I'll fight my corner for NHS funding."
    We know what that means—he will lose his corner, as the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made clear yesterday.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in real-terms funding for the NHS—of more than 70 per cent. since 1979—demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to the NHS? Does he also agree that the record number of patients being treated, including the increase in the number of people having hip replacements and heart bypasses, also demonstrates that firm commitment to the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The figures for the past seven years are: an increase of a quarter in the real funding for the NHS and an increase of a third in the number of patients treated. That is the Government's record—extra funding, used efficiently to treat patients. It is a record that the Labour party cannot match in office and would not and cannot match now, ahead of a general election.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not the case that the so-called promise made by the Prime Minister about year-on-year increases in real-terms funding for the health service was disavowed two months later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he published the figures in the Red Book? Will the Secretary of State admit that page 142 of the Red Book shows clearly that, in the second year, the Government expect a fall in real-terms expenditure in the Department of Health and that, in year three, they expect
    726
    a standstill in real-terms expenditure in the Department of Health? Does not that show, first, that the Government have already broken the promise that they made at their party conference and, secondly, that they are not to be trusted with the health service or with the government of this country?
    Mr. Dorrell: Page 142 of the Red Book deals with excise duties, tobacco, fuel, air quality package, and alcohol. The hon. Gentleman cannot even get his page references right. He is probably referring to table 5A.1—
    Mr. Smith: No.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am looking at the 1997–98 Red Book, published in November 1996. The hon. Gentleman has the wrong reference.
    The substance of the hon. Gentleman's point, as he knows very well—we dealt with it repeatedly around Budget time—concerns the commitment set out in the Red Book to real-terms increases in NHS funding, provided at 3 per cent. growth in current funding for year one, and provided at more modest levels in years two and three. That still represents real growth, which the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not allow the hon. Gentleman to match.
    Mr. John Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not increase health service spending but will burden the health service with the costs of a national minimum wage, which will mean extra pay for manual workers in the health service and less money for patient care?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is so unconfident of his ability to deliver a growing economy that he knows he cannot match our commitment to the national health service. What is more, even the paltry budget that the slow-growing British economy under Labour would allow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury includes a prior commitment to abolishing compulsory competitive tendering. That will cost him £90 million. There is also a prior commitment to introducing a national minimum wage, which the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was the last Labour spokesman to cost—at £500 million. That makes £590 million that will come out of patient care before the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury can even begin to think about a growing health service.

    Mental Health Services
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of health authorities to discuss services for mentally ill people. [10358]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I meet chairmen of health authorities whenever issues of mutual interest need to be discussed.
    Mr. Miller: Will the Minister comment on the report published today by the King's Fund commission? Does

    727
    he agree that it shows that, after 18 years of Conservative rule, London does not have a comprehensive mental health strategy? In the light of that report, will he also look carefully at the proposed mergers of NHS trusts such as the West Cheshire and Wirral Community Healthcare NHS trusts in my constituency, and ensure that any mergers are approved only on the basis of patient care and need, not managerial convenience?
    Mr. Burns: The King's Fund report, published today, is important in that it coincides with much of the work that we have done at the Department of Health on the provision of mental health services in London. No one could disagree that those services are under pressure. Unfortunately, since the creation of the NHS, both inside and outside the medical profession, mental health care has been the Cinderella service. That has been tackled over the past five years with significant increases in funding and targeted funding to deal with particular issues.
    The important issue that the report highlights—weighted capitation funding—has already been decided on by the Government; we have changed the system and implemented the proposal so as to improve comprehensive community services. In that respect we are one step ahead of the report.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's constituency point, the merger is subject to consultation, and a decision will be taken in due course. I know that he would not expect me to comment at this stage.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a gap in the services for mentally ill young people, and that the services offered for children and adults, many of the latter elderly, are not appropriate for this age group? Will he give support to voluntary groups, such as VISYON in Congleton, which seek to highlight the problem and to support mentally ill young people and their families?
    Mr. Burns: A great deal of work is going on with regard to young people and adolescents because of the problems that have arisen. One such problem is that, because of the age of that group, they have never been used to institutional care. As part of the programme of improving and developing a comprehensive mental health service, we have in place the children's and adolescent mental health programme. We are well aware of the problems facing that target group. More must be done in the area because, as I said earlier, in the past—since the creation of the health service—it has not had the same priority as, say, accident and emergency services. We welcome all input to improve and enhance the provision of care, from the voluntary sector as well as within the health service.
    Ms Coffey: As today's King's Fund report on mental health in London clearly shows that services in the inner city are in a state of near collapse, will the Minister explain the huge gap between his recent reassurances and the reality outlined in the report? Is he now finally prepared to accept that that Cinderella service is not providing care in the community for mentally ill people and their families or proper protection for the public in London or elsewhere?
    Mr. Burns: No, I do not accept that analysis. The hon. Lady is well aware that record sums of money are being
    728
    put into mental health care. For example, the mental health challenge fund, the mental illness specific grant and the £5 million emergency pressures fund are targeted where help is most needed. In addition, because by definition the problem is greater in London—because more people suffer from mental illness there—London receives a significant proportion of the available funding. It is important to build on everything that has been done to create a comprehensive and effective service that provides proper patient care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last February a programme to ensure that health authorities draw up plans for a comprehensive community service for mental health. That is going ahead and being monitored. We shall continue to do that to ensure that we catch up and get the best service possible. That is how we should move forward, rather than carping and criticising at the margins.
    Sir Roger Sims: Services for mentally ill people include not only medical provision in hospital but the provision of adequate housing accommodation when patients are ready to leave hospital so that they do not block beds. May I suggest that my hon. Friend urges the chairmen of health authorities to work closely with local housing associations to ensure that appropriate housing is provided? May I also suggest that he discusses with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment the fact that they, too, should urge housing associations to make such provision and ensure that housing associations have the resources to do so?
    Mr. Burns: I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that he has identified two important areas that are already at the crux of Government policy. We encourage housing authorities, housing associations, social services and health authorities to work together so that there is a multidisciplinary approach. That is the best way to cut through the problems and reach a solution as quickly as possible. Another area where the Government are doing a great deal of interrelated work is on drug and alcohol abuse, which is a contributory factor in much mental illness.

    Hospital Closures
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the number of hospitals closed since 1979. [10359]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): This information is not available centrally.
    Mr. Skinner: I am surprised that the Government have not fiddled those figures as well. All of us on Opposition Benches know the figures—they are in the Library. Since 1979, 20 per cent. of all hospitals have been closed by this lousy, rotten Government. That is the truth.
    On a day when we are told that 400 critically ill children have been turned away from intensive care in the past three months by the tawdry lot opposite, is it not a fitting epitaph for this Government that the national health service is now filled with patients on trolleys in corridors from the cradle to the grave? It is time that the Government got the sack.
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman's reference to the exercise by his own party earlier this morning will be exposed by my right hon. Friend in the debate that follows as a disgraceful ruse. The statistics for hospitals have never been collected centrally. That has been explained in a number of written answers, as the Opposition know. For a party that wants to cut bureaucracy, it would be bizarre if Labour started to collect those figures now, as they are far less relevant than the figures that show how many people are being treated in the NHS, which is what counts.
    The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, during the past few years, there has been an investment of £15 million in capital building in his health authority. Why does he not welcome that, along with the fact that more patients are being treated? That is what counts.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not also true that a great many new hospitals have been opened since 1979? Furthermore, is it not true that some hospitals, which were very old and not in a suitable state to serve the public properly, have been renovated, such as the general hospital in Birmingham, which is being converted to the new children's hospital? When Opposition Members speak like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), they show that they are dinosaurs who want hospitals built in the early 1900s to remain unchanged and unimproved.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) an expert in supporting outdated Victorian industrial practices, now seems to want to do the same for Victorian buildings and hospitals. There has been substantial investment in real estate in the NHS. That investment is now threatened by the Opposition, who do not accept the private finance initiative which will be responsible for the building of more hospitals in their constituencies. They would put that at risk.

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge to discuss the financial position of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and the situation in local hospitals. [10360]
    Mr. Malone: The national health service executive is in regular contact with national health service Organisations on behalf of Ministers. I have no immediate plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority.
    Mr. Gapes: Why not? Does not the Minister know that, in my health authority, there is a £6 million deficit, that Whipps Cross hospital has cancelled elective admissions since just after Christmas because it cannot cope with accident and emergency admissions, and that King George hospital has 97 per cent. bed occupancy? People are frequently left on trolleys for 12, 15 or 20 hours. Why does not the Minister have the courage to come to my local hospital? I will take him there and show him the problems that the Government have created.
    Mr. Malone: If invited, I shall visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I shall be delighted to see the excellent work that has been carried out by the trust in his health authority. He fails to recognise the
    730
    additional investment that has been made available for this year—an increase of £1.7 million in real terms, a further £4.4 million funding for strategic change and £845,000 for priority services for the rest of the year. Much of that money is now being deployed in trusts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will gladly come along and celebrate the success of that fund as it builds even more facilities.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I encourage my hon. Friend to visit that health authority. Notwithstanding any difficulties that it, like many other health authorities, experiences, will my hon. Friend point out that more than £23 million of capital expenditure has been put into the main hospital there, Whipps Cross hospital, which has resulted in brand new surgeries and a brand new accident and emergency wing, from which local people now benefit?
    Mr. Malone: A cross-party invitation is almost impossible to resist, even with a busy diary. If invited formally, I shall certainly try to make time to acknowledge the progress in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and the progress to which my hon. Friend drew attention—progress that would not take place if a Government ever got into office who could not make the pledge made by the Prime Minister, that a Conservative Government would continue to fund the health service and to increase funding in real terms year on year.
    Ms Jowell: The nation would be reassured if the Minister would face up to the crisis that is confronting accident and emergency departments throughout the country. What does he have to say to the nurse whom I met recently at Edgware hospital—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This question refers to hospitals that are local to Redbridge and Waltham Forest.
    Ms Jowell: As at Whipps Cross hospital in Redbridge, which has also been gripped by crisis, the nurse said:
    "It has been like a war zone here. We have had to put up 18 beds in the minor injuries unit and the Government tells us that there is no crisis."
    When will the Government face the fact that there is a winter crisis in the national health service?
    Mr. Malone: I would be delighted to meet the ambulatory nurse to whom the hon. Lady refers. She seems to move with great felicity from one health authority to another, depending on the question that is posed. I would tell that nurse that I am sure that she recognises the investment that the Government have made in the health service. If the hon. Lady wants to set the nation's mind at rest, perhaps she and her Front-Bench colleagues could stop drumming up spoof reports—which are based on no facts whatsoever—to scare the public.

    Renal Services (Greater Manchester and Cheshire)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of renal services in Greater Manchester and Cheshire. [10361]
    Mr. Horam: Health authorities serving Greater Manchester and south Cheshire have recently consulted the public on proposals to reorganise renal services in the area. The health authority that is co-ordinating the review is presenting its evaluation to all seven participating authorities this month. Afterwards, health authority members and others will have the opportunity to consider the proposals further.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that renal failure is a complex illness that often needs the support of other specialties? Does he accept that Macclesfield community health council, which has conducted an in-depth inquiry into the matter and sought public views on the provision of renal services in Cheshire and Greater Manchester, has advanced the unanimous opinion that Wythenshawe hospital, under Dr. Mike Venning and his colleagues, would provide a wonderful hub for the provision of renal services? It found that it would be an advantage to retain three hubs—the Manchester royal infirmary, Hope hospital and Wythenshawe hospital—rather than reducing the hubs to two, with all the associated problems that that would create for those with renal diseases.
    Mr. Horam: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He raises an important point. I put it to him that this is a clinician-led review that involves a lot of capital investment. It will obviously be predicated on the desire to secure better health care for renal patients. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend—the House will understand my relief in saying this, knowing my hon. Friend's formidable lobbying attributes—that it will include improved satellite facilities in Macclesfield which, as he knows, are not nurse or clinician-led at the moment. They will receive full medical support under the proposals.
    My hon. Friend will also understand that, if there is opposition to the proposals, or if the health authorities cannot agree on them, they will come to Ministers. In light of that, I must retain the independent view of Ministers to judge the proposals properly when they come before us. However, I shall certainly take into account the points raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Minister like to astonish us all by putting the patients' interests first? This is not a matter that can be decided by the ill-mannered fighting of individual consultants: it is a matter of providing high-quality satellite facilities to serve not just Macclesfield but any patient in south Cheshire who requires renal assistance. Will the Minister confirm that, as far as he is concerned, the quality of renal services will always take precedence over the particular interests of individual Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Horam: Of course that is the case. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), this is a clinician-led review with the object of putting more capital investment into a necessary area in order to provide a better service. I am sure that the proposals will achieve that aim, but we take into account all points of view—both those opposed and those in favour—when we consider them.

    GP Fundholding
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of (a) Buckinghamshire and (b) Milton Keynes are served by fundholding general practitioners (i) as a percentage of the population and (ii) in total. [10362]
    Mr. Malone: The total registered population in Buckinghamshire covered by a fundholding general practitioner is appropriately 486,000. In Milton Keynes, fundholders serve around 156,000 people. Those figures represent 71 per cent. of the registered population of Buckinghamshire and 80 per cent. of the registered population of Milton Keynes.
    Mr. Butler: As a registered patient with one of the best fundholding GP practices, not just in Newport Pagnell and my constituency but in the country, may I invite my hon. Friend to join me in congratulating the doctors who have demonstrated that this policy works in providing an ever-improving and outstanding service to their patients? What advice would he give to my constituents and others who are anxious to continue to enjoy the benefits of GP fundholding after the next election?
    Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the excellent work that is being done not only by his GP fundholder but by others in his constituency. I extend that to across the country as well, where the majority of the population of England are now served by GP fundholders. There is a very simple answer to the question that he posed, because in the election one party will be pledged to abolish GP fundholding—the Labour party. The Conservative Government will sustain GP fundholding when re-elected, so my advice is pretty clear: vote Conservative.

    Health Service Savings
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the likely savings to be made for the health services as a result of the measures contained in the Health Authorities Act 1995. [10363]
    Mr. Dorrell: Total annual savings as a result of the Health Authorities Act 1995 are estimated at £150 million: £100 million from the abolition of regional health authorities, and £50 million from the introduction of single, unified health authorities. Those savings will be used for direct patient care.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the savings from administration that he just announced were bitterly opposed by the Labour party? Will he confirm that an additional £300 million a year will be diverted to patient care from cuts in hospital bureaucracy? Therefore, is it realistic for the Labour party to claim that a further £100 million a year can be saved? Where would the money come from?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be an extra £300 million a year for patient care as a result of the Government's squeeze on unnecessary administrative processes.

    733
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) loves talking about savings from reduced administration, but he is not serious about it. Indeed, so unserious is he that the Health Service Journal, which circulates among health service managers, says:
    "Managers will not lose their jobs, says Smith".
    So he will reduce costs on administration but he will not reduce the number of people in administration.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister will be aware that, a fortnight ago, a patient from Leeds was sent to the intensive care unit in Hull, a journey of 60 miles, because there was no room in the Leeds intensive care unit. Last Tuesday, because of no room in the Hull royal infirmary intensive care unit, a constituent of mine, Mr. Dennis Drax, was sent to Leeds, another journey of 60 miles. Sadly, both patients died. How much of the new surplus will be given to our intensive care unit?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; it is not directly relevant to this question, but I shall answer it none the less.
    Any individual case where the service may be seen to have failed will of course be investigated, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell the House the whole story of intensive care referrals this winter. I hope that he will remind the House that, this winter, for the first time, every intensive care unit in the health service is connected to an emergency bed referral system, and that an intensive care clinician who needs to refer a patient to another intensive care unit has immediate access to availability in the health service for the first time. The hon. Gentleman might have spared time to welcome that development of service.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the development of the private finance initiative for the construction of new hospitals. [10364]
    Mr. Horam: Contracts have been signed for 43 private finance initiative schemes, with a total capital value of £317 million.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend remember that, three years ago, when the PFI policy was in its infancy and we were considering the prospects for a brand new district general hospital in Darenth park for the people of north-west Kent, the then spokesman on health for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), derided the project as being on a B list and highly unlikely to take place? Will he tell the House what progress is being made with that project, and emphasise the excellent quality of the team in our local NHS trust and the very strong support for the project from the people of north-west Kent?
    Mr. Horam: If, indeed, it was on a B list when the Opposition said it was, it has done pretty well since. The Darenth park scheme is progressing extremely well and making good progress. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not least among many others, has put a great deal of effort into introducing a successful product. I am glad to be able to say that he is
    734
    not alone. There are many schemes throughout the country that are benefiting from PFI, where otherwise there would perhaps be no hope of having a new hospital.
    Mr. Barron: Is the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) aware that he has some support from the Opposition? He said in his last election manifesto that he had taken a leading role in securing the recently announced district general hospital. In fact, it has still not been agreed. We await the hon. Gentleman's next election manifesto.
    The Minister referred to 43 projects under the private finance initiative. Not one of them is a new hospital. The Tories have promised PFI hospitals since 1990 but not one has been delivered. The Secretary of State has promised the Prime Minister £500 million of new PFI hospital contracts by April, yet has not delivered £1.
    The Government have tried to sweeten PFI deals with tailor-made Acts, but have failed to do so. I understand that, last week, new guidelines were offered to prop up the PFI scheme by making available national health service budget building cuts.
    Is not the scenario that I have outlined jeopardising the future of our NHS? When will the Government clean up the mess and start to build new hospitals instead of talking about so doing?
    Mr. Horam: That was a long question. In turn, I will ask the hon. Gentleman a short question. Are the Opposition in favour of PFI or are they not? It is—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Government are here to answer questions, not to ask them.
    Mr. Horam: We would like some answers, Madam Speaker.
    The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand that the proposal for a Norfolk and Norwich general hospital is indeed for a hospital. It will amaze hon. Members on both sides of the House in that area to learn from him that the proposal is not for a new general hospital. In fact, we all know that it is for a new general hospital. What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
    Mr. Dunn: I remember a time when the International Monetary Fund, not the then Government, determined our health expenditure. Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks on behalf of the people of Dartford for all the help that he has given to the PFI, leading to the construction of a new district hospital with 400 beds—a state-of-the-art hospital—in my constituency, which was opposed by the Labour party throughout, by its Front-Bench spokesmen?
    Mr. Horam: That is a fact. The reality is that hospital projects are going forward throughout the country and not only in west Kent. We are seeing projects going forward in Norfolk and Norwich, Durham, Worcester and Carlisle. Such projects are progressing throughout the country as a result of the PFI, with no thanks to the Opposition, who have constantly sniped and accused us of privatisation, all to no effect.

    NHS Pay Awards
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficacy of local pay bargaining as a means of determining pay awards for NHS staff. [10365]
    Mr. Dorrell: Local pay is delivering fair and affordable rewards to staff while supporting the development of flexible and responsive health services.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent comments made by Ken Jarrold, the director of human resources of the national health service executive? He said that local pay arrangements would be considered successful only if deals had been made in 50 per cent. of NHS trusts. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, to date, almost a year after the system was set up, settlements have been reached in only 25 per cent. of NHS trusts. Does he agree with the director's comments or does he not?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has got the facts wrong. As of last Friday, 228 trusts had agreed local deals with their staff. They represent 53 per cent. of all trusts. The substantive question that parties must answer is whether they are in favour of accepting the recommendations of the independent review bodies. The independent nurses' pay review body recommended a system of local pay. The question that every party must answer is whether it is in favour of the continuation of those review bodies and of respecting their advice. The Government are in favour of respecting their advice, which is why we accepted their recommendation in favour of local pay, and why we are implementing it.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend remember a time when pay was agreed centrally, when there was civil war in the Labour party, and when there was a pay freeze, which led to the winter of discontent? Is that not the likely scenario ahead of us if we ever get a Labour Government?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has quite an authoritative figure on his side. No less a figure than the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was busy yesterday warning nurses:
    "Pay squeeze here to stay, Brown warns the nurses".
    It will be interesting to see how quickly Labour Members have learnt their party's new lines when they meet members of the Royal College of Nursing in their constituencies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10386]
    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.
    Mrs. Campbell: In April last year, the Health Secretary promised to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, despite that promise, 15 critically ill children have been turned away from Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge in the past few months? Can he not keep any of his promises?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should check that her facts are accurate before she mistakenly sets out such policies. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one. The bogus figures that the Labour party has produced can self-evidently be seen as bogus. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to hear what Dr. David Hallworth, chairman of the independent Paediatric Intensive Care Society, said. He called Labour's claims "pretty meaningless", and very wisely added that this issue should not be
    "subject to party political point scoring."
    Sir Terence Higgins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the electorate are not naive? They know that a promise not to increase rates of income tax is not the same as a promise not to increase personal taxation. If one says that one wants a starting rate of 10p, that is utterly meaningless if one does not also say at what level it will start and how wide the band will be. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Government's record on such matters?
    The Prime Minister: One simply needs to look at which was the last party to put up the basic rate of tax; and one recalls that it was the Labour party. One should look at which party has never supported a single Conservative tax cut and has done nothing to get the basic rate down to 23p—I think that Labour Members know that it is their party—at which party has supported absolutely no measures to control expenditure—the Labour party has supported none—and at which party has made £30 billion-worth of promises that it has not yet disclaimed, but that it must disclaim if it is to stand up its ludicrous claim that it will not increase taxes.
    Mr. Blair: The Conservative party's 22 tax rises since the last election must have slipped the Prime Minister's mind for a moment.
    May I return the Prime Minister to the point about intensive care beds for children? Does he accept that the figures given by hospitals of the number of children turned away—eventually found a bed in other hospitals, but turned away—are correct? If they are correct, how does that square with the Health Secretary's promise that the whole matter would be dealt with, and that there would be no repetition of that practice, given what happened last year?
    The Prime Minister: I said a moment ago that the report produced by the Labour party was alarmist nonsense. I repeat that point. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one—
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Not to the parents.
    The Prime Minister: Of course not to the parents—but, unless the hon. Lady will persuade the shadow Chancellor to provide more resources for health, I suggest that she and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should not criticise a service that is treating more people, and treating them better. Just occasionally, it would be wise of them to praise the health service for the way in which it deals with the growing demands of health care, rather than always criticising it.
    Mr. Blair: We do praise the national health service. We built the national health service. What we condemn is the Government's record on the national health service.
    May I put this to the Prime Minister? Of course it is the case that children are eventually found another bed—that was the case even in the tragic instance of Nicholas Geldard, which gave rise to this whole problem—but the Secretary of State for Health claimed that the business of having to go from hospital to hospital would stop. May I give the Prime Minister an instance from Bristol children's hospital? Since January this year—even this year—15 children, just at that hospital, have been turned away because of a shortage of beds. Does the Prime Minister accept—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may shout, but does the Prime Minister accept that we are talking not just about intensive care beds for children? Has he seen the report prepared on community care for the mentally ill, and what today's newspapers say about problems for doctors' practices? Can he not accept that there is a crisis in some parts of the national health service, and that it is not good enough for him and other Ministers just to conceal the true state of affairs this side of a general election?
    The Prime Minister: If there is a crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the language of priorities, why does he not match our pledge on spending in the national health service? If there is a crisis, why are more people being treated in the national health service than ever before? If there is a crisis, why have we met the charge set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on whether our reforms are working—that is, whether more people are being treated?
    There are more intensive beds; there are more treatments; there are better treatments; there are speedier treatments. Unless the right hon. Member for Sedgefield is going to follow the lead that we have set in providing resources for the health service over the past 18 years, and committing ourselves to do so in the future, he is doing nothing more than seeking to make political capital out of a service that is dealing with a growing demand with great skill.
    Mr. Blair: May I put it to the Prime Minister that, over the past few years—since he has been in charge of the national health service—the service has been given 20,000 more managers but has 50,000 fewer nurses? Is it not the case that the national health service would be better if it were run as a proper co-operative service again, rather than hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor? The only party that will rebuild Britain's national health service is the party that created it.
    The Prime Minister: It is perfectly true that the Labour party established the national health service, and I offer it full credit for its role in following up the Beveridge report instituted earlier by an all-party Government; but it is the Conservative party that has built up the health service. We have been in power for two thirds of the period that has elapsed since then, and we have built up the health service from its beginnings into a service that is now recognised as the best in the world.
    The figures that the right hon. Gentleman quotes on managers are wrong. The impression that he consistently gives of the health service runs it down. It would be very refreshing if, just for once, Labour Members acknowledged that we have on our hands the most successful national health service in the world, which provides more and better treatments than ever before. The reality is that the people of this nation who use the health service understand that, even if the Labour party, using it as a political football, does not.
    Mr. Rathbone: During the course of today, when the Prime Minister looked back on his trip to the far east, did he remember seeing there a beautiful and very rare flower called the rafflesia amoldia, which is parasitic in nature, is without a stem or roots and which with its vines embraces any handy, strong tree? If he did, did he draw any conclusions from seeing it?
    The Prime Minister: I saw no such flowers on that occasion.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister accept that, in last night's vote, the Government won no part of informed opinion, including that in his own party, in support of their proposals for bugging people and their homes through the Police Bill? Surely he cannot accuse four past Home Secretaries, including a Conservative one, one past Conservative Attorney-General, the present Lord Chief Justice and many Law Lords of failing to back the police because they insist that those wide-ranging powers ought to be subject to prior judicial authority. We all understand that the Home Secretary must take time to digest that vote, but will the Prime Minister at least assure us that, rather than riding roughshod over that opinion, he will listen and respond to it? Will he note that, if he wishes to do so on a cross-party basis, we stand ready to participate?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House, including I assume the right hon. Gentleman, knows that intensive surveillance has been going on under successive Governments under the mantra of guidelines for about 30 years: there is nothing new about it. The purpose of the Bill was to put it on a statutory footing: that was what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was seeking to do, and he proposed that it should be put under independent review. The amendments tabled by the Labour and Liberal parties in the Lords contradict one another. They are unsatisfactory and will need to be changed. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will reflect upon the view that was expressed in another place, but the right hon. Gentleman has to realise that intensive surveillance can be used only in investigating serious crime and where there is no other way of obtaining the intelligence. That is an important principle, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to move away from that principle.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend remind those who listened with incredulity to the yesterday's speech by the shadow Chancellor that, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is no substitute for the original?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that every Conservative Member regards imitation as the sincerest form of flattery, but the reality is that, whatever the best intentions of the shadow Chancellor, the sheer nature of the Labour party is such that he certainly could not deliver that which he has promised. He knows that, I think the electorate know that, and the faces behind him portray that very clearly.
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10387]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Donohoe: Since 1989, some 25 per cent. of beds have been lost to the national health service in Scotland. Today, the senior Duke, the Duke of Hamilton, who happens to be the brother of the Minister who has responsibility for health in Scotland, told the people of Scotland that the Tories cannot be trusted with health. Does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain, after yet another attempt to denigrate the health service by the Labour party, why more people are being treated in the health service in Scotland and elsewhere. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that, or is he playing "follow my leader" by trying to use Britain's national health service as a party political football for the Labour party?
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend ask to see a report of the incident overnight at Full Sutton prison? When he does, does he expect to find that the progress that has been made in the Prison Service in recent years will be reflected by the fact that the disturbance was quelled quickly by the excellent work of the Prison Service and prison officers, to whom praise is due? Will he note that Full Sutton is a modern prison with no overcrowding, but that it holds some of the most violent prisoners in the country? It is their behaviour that was the cause of the riot.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity and I need not add to it. I agree with him. I shall be seeing the report of what happened last night and I am delighted that it was handled so swiftly and efficiently.
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10388]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clelland: Will the Prime Minister accept some facts about the national health service? The Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle has turned away 23 children in need of intensive care beds in the past three months, including a 20-month-old baby who had to be taken 120 miles north to Edinburgh. If we add to that the case of my elderly constituent who, tragically, died after being driven 40 miles south to Hartlepool because there were no beds available in Gateshead, surely even the Prime Minister can see why the Tories are no longer trusted with the national health service.
    The Prime Minister: Of course I cannot respond immediately to the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised—if he had wished me to do so, he would doubtless have given me notice of them—since literally hundreds of thousands of people are treated in the national health service every day. The hon. Gentleman gave some facts about the health service; perhaps I can give him some. We now spend £724 for every man, woman and child in the country compared with £444 in 1979. [Interruption.] It is nice to see that the mouth of the Humber has returned from Hong Kong.
    The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will also know that, each and every year since 1979, there has been a significant real-terms increase in resources in the health service. More people are being treated and there are more doctors, more nurses and better and wider treatments. That is a success story and, try as it might, the Labour party—the Labour party is certainly very trying—will not be able to damn the success of the national health service.

  BILL PRESENTED
    REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY
    Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Mildred Gordon and Ms Harriet Harman, presented a Bill to regulate the diet industry; to bring all medicines relating to diets under control; and for connected purposes: 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 72].

United Kingdom Membership of the European Union (Referendum)
3.32 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
The question I propose is whether we should renegotiate our membership, limiting it to trading arrangements, or pursue full integration, probably with a single currency. The Bill does not advocate leaving Europe.
In another place on Friday, quite by coincidence, the noble Lord Pearson, with cross-party support, will propose the repeal of section 2 of the treaty of Rome—which, incidentally, would allow renegotiation to take place.
It is 22 years since the last referendum on this subject, and a great deal of water has gone under the bridge since then. The issues that concern us today were not even mentioned then. Then it was about trade, but today the issues are far more political, and impinge far more on the everyday lives of our constituents. Indeed, at the weekend Mr. Santer was putting forward sweeping proposals for social changes and intervention, which would affect the matters on which the election will be fought—health, education and so on.
Parliament is no longer sovereign as it once was. However the small print of Rome was written, it was not explained in detail to the British people at the time, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Everywhere I go in my constituency of Billericay—which now includes a large slice of Basildon, incidentally—in the pubs and clubs, the supermarkets and the high street, people do not complain to me about the health service—they think it is splendid. Nor do they complain about the schools—they are excellent. They are delighted that, for example, more children will be able to go to nursery school. The questions they all ask me are, "What are you going to do about Europe? When are we going to get a referendum?" They see a referendum as the only way in which they can have a say on matters they read about in newspapers and see on television every day.
Hardly a week goes by without some row between us and Europe over new legislation that we apparently did not expect and apparently do not want, so it appears very much as though we are at odds with those who are supposed to be our partners. At my local fish and chip shop, constituents see a large banner saying, "Save British fish". They have to go to the nearest supermarket for their meat, because the local butcher—a shop that had been there for 150 years—was closed down because of all the new regulations, which literally prevented him from using his old chopping block and the knives that his father and grandfather had used. The butcher could not afford the new regulations—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order and hear the hon. Lady properly. Any hon. Member who wants to oppose the Bill can do so, but there is a time to do so, and it is not while the hon. Lady is speaking.
Mrs. Gorman: Many of the regulations originate in European directives, and they are killing small enterprises.
742
The list goes on and on. My constituents bitterly resent that, but they feel impotent to do anything about it. Most of the time, we seem to be at daggers drawn with people we call our partners. My constituents know no other way of reasserting what they consider to be the rights of the British people except to say, "Can we have a referendum to put our point of view across?" [Interruption.]
This is not a party political, but a national, issue. I must tell the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who are busy chortling that many people have told me that they are normally Labour voters but will vote for me because I stick up for them on the European issue and put their point of view across. Those hon. Gentlemen may be laughing on the other side of their faces when, at the next election, Basildon again declares its results early and returns a Conservative Member of Parliament.
In a recent poll carried out by a national newspaper in my constituency, 64 per cent. of people said that they would totally oppose giving up the pound, and others said that they would like to get out of Europe altogether—my Bill does not advocate that. There has been a massive shift in public opinion.
One constituent, putting it his own way, said, "Who wants pockets full of bottle tops instead of good old British money?" [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the new currency would mean 15 new pieces of paper and metal, none of which would equate to the current values of coins and notes. People would have to learn a new financial language. When we introduced decimalisation, people had a lot of trouble with that—Chancellors might not have done, but the people did. We will have even more trouble if we go ahead with this scheme.
Sometimes it behoves the people who are barracking or chortling away on the Opposition Benches to remember that these grandiose schemes boil down to their effects on the lives of ordinary people. The utopian ideas of Brussels sometimes end up as Essex man's bankruptcy petition. The idea that a single currency is the only way in which European trade can proceed is totally absurd. I hope that we can gain a commitment that we will not go ahead with that silly idea.
The views of most hon. Members are well known, especially to you, Madam Speaker, because you have to call us in the few European debates we have; but we do not know what the bulk of our 58 million constituents think about Europe these days. We are in the run-up to a general election and all parties are setting out their stalls, but there are very few discussions about Europe, which is the issue that I know that my constituents want me to bring to the attention of the House.
We cannot run away from or keep a lid on the issue of Europe. A referendum may not be ideal, but it is the only way I know of finding out what people want and giving them that outlet. When all the parties have similar views on Europe, Dicey tells us that extremist parties arise. He says that, to solve the problem, we should have a referendum, and that is what I am calling for today.
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Denis MacShane to oppose.
3.40 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now you've had it."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker.
I do not think that, in pure terms, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will find much opposition to her Bill, because for some time it has been the policy of the Labour party and of the official Conservative party to put to the people the question of continued membership of the European Union or the specific question of a single currency. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the same thing."] It is not the same thing at all, but were that simply the technical debate before us, the Bill would not be worth opposing.
It is a paradox that the hon. Lady, in defending the sovereignty of Parliament, is proposing to remove from Parliament its sovereignty to decide a great question. It is also perhaps a paradox that she, who has often gone through the Division Lobbies in her long years as the hon. Member for Billericay to remove from many British people—from local authorities, civil society organisations, trade unions and others—the right to decide for themselves in various areas of their lives and activities, should now complain that Britain has to share some of its power with our partner nations in Europe.
The hon. Lady is, however, an adornment to the House, and I think that it is fair to say that we all love her—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but she is about to hear the iron maiden of truth clamping around her farrago of fantasy and misleading information. She may be the chirping chimpanzee presenting the Bill, but behind her are organ grinders with a deeper purpose.
The motion concerns not only a technical debate on a referendum: it is the opening shot of a campaign to get Britain out of Europe. I wish that every business man and every ally of our country was here today, so that they could understand the deep, persistent and unbridgeable divisions in the Conservative party. At home and abroad, the Conservative party is seen as profoundly anti-European.
I am not interested in Tory divisions. We shall see whether the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), all of whom are in the withdrawalist camp, come to vote today, and whether members of the Cabinet who are busy issuing anti-European manifestos turn up to join them.
In the few minutes left, I want to put a positive case for Europe, because I believe that continued British membership of the European Union is vital for our trade and security, and for consolidating democracy. As a great trading country, we sell more to France than to all the Commonwealth countries put together. We sell more to the Netherlands than to Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China put together. Every pound of inward investment into the United Kingdom, such as the Nissan jobs announced yesterday, comes because we are part of the world's biggest trading community.
To the east of the Community, we have an enormous new opportunity as countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary post east Asian levels of growth. They are clamouring to join the Europe from
744
which the hon. Member for Billericay, and her referendum supporters such as James Goldsmith, wish us to become semi-detached.
It is no coincidence that the leaders of the new democracies in eastern Europe, as has been said by Gyula Horn, the Prime Minister of Hungary, are prepared to alter their judicial, legal and social norms to become part of the EU. They understand that pooling sovereignty and sharing power are essential prerequisites for the new international global economic order. We are doing that through the World Trade Organisation, and it is sheer fantasy to imagine that we can start to withdraw from the EU and have an a la carte, pick-and-choose Europe. We may pick the things we want; the rest of Europe will pick what they want, or do not want from us.
Britain has always been an open, free-trading, welcoming nation, and we cannot turn from that path. The hon. Member for Billericay and I had a discussion on the BBC yesterday. She asked whether the British people really wanted to take orders from people with foreign-sounding names. She should be careful about that, because among the Cabinet, among the fathers and grandfathers of the Cabinet, and among Opposition Members, there are plenty of foreign names. The best of the British tradition has been when we have been open to every possible foreign influence.
The problem is only in Britain. As hon. Members tramp around Europe, as many of us do, we find that of course there is a debate on economic and monetary union and the technical modalities, on reform of the common agricultural policy and on security and immigration policy. However, everyone asks me how Britain can have open borders with Ireland, a sovereign republic with which we have many differences, when we put up so many obstacles to people visiting from France or Germany.
It is only in Parliament that we hear the rising clamour for withdrawal. The hon. Member for Billericay has many friends in the media; much of the press is on her side. People who put the positive case sometimes have difficulty in getting their voices heard. Even some of the pro-European newspapers are like foxes running from covert to covert, trying to find a policy on which to settle.
However, there are many Government and Opposition Members who will not allow the distortions and dishonesties of Goldsmith and his followers to go unchallenged. Our country has seen that tradition before: the tradition of hostility to faraway places of which we know little, and foreign-sounding people we do not like; of isolationism; of appeasing forces operating from some hacienda or bunker that tell us what to do.
I believe that the House, and the country, will not have that. That is why I am not frightened of a referendum or of the forthcoming general election, in which the party that stands clearly for a positive Britain in Europe will win handsomely, and the party that is divided, unsure, isolationist and frightened of Europe will be defeated.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House proceeded to a Division.
SIR TEDDY TAYLOR and MR. BILL WALKER were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

745
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Edward Leigh, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. John Wilkinson.

United Kingdom Membership of the European Union (Referendum)
  UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (REFERENDUM)
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January, and to be printed [Bill 73].
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its deep concern at the grave situation now evident in the National Health Service in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; believes that anxiety about Her Majesty's Government's policy for this situation now transcends party lines; notes with alarm that throughout the United Kingdom beds have been cut, operations are being cancelled, intensive care beds are unavailable, and emergency services are under intolerable pressure; believes that the spiralling costs of the internal market—now totalling an extra £1.5 billion a year—and its diversion of resources away from front-line patient care have created these problems; salutes staff of all kinds and at all levels in the NHS who have worked hard to keep the service going; believes that government policy has left many people in urban and rural communities without the access to health care they need, especially in relation to services for the elderly and for those being discharged from hospital after surgery at an increasingly early stage; deplores the way in which many NHS decisions, especially on the future of hospitals and casualty services, are being taken in a manner that does not give due weight to the views of local people; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set about restoring the NHS as a public service that puts patients first.
  The starting point for the debate must be that the national health service is in a serious crisis. It is not just the Labour party which is saying that, but the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the report of the King's Fund on mental health services in London. The figures that we published this morning, to which I shall refer later and which were the subject of discussion in relation to the question on paediatric intensive care at Prime Minister's Question Time, also show it.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me so early in the debate. On the subject of crisis, did he see the ITN news last night, when a member of Unison—a hospital worker—having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), said that if Labour were elected there would be another winter of discontent and the national health service would be in crisis?
  Mr. Smith: I like to think that we should be discussing, not one individual's views of what might happen in a year's time, but what is happening here and now. In wanting to address those issues, we share the Secretary of State's views.
  A rather plaintive letter from the NHS executive of the South and West region, dated 28 November and sent out to all health authority chief executives, begins as follows:
  "The Secretary of State has asked for regular fortnightly briefing on winter pressures. We understand that he wishes to have a full understanding of the pressures the acute services are under during the winter."

  747
  The Secretary of State wants information, so let us give him some. Let us tell him, for example, about the waits being experienced in casualty units up and down the country. Let us tell him about Geoffrey Coppin, a stroke victim who spent two and a half days on a trolley in St. Helier hospital. His daughter had to go out and buy pillows at Woolworths to make him comfortable. Let us tell the Secretary of State about Stanley Coombs, a 69-year-old man from Mitcham with chronic lung disease who had a 20-hour wait in casualty at St. George's hospital in Tooting. Those are not isolated examples: they occur time after time around the country.
  Let us tell the Secretary of State about those people who, owing to long casualty waits, eventually feel forced to opt for private medical treatment to shorten their wait. Let us tell him about Mary Vaughan, an elderly pneumonia sufferer. After she had spent 21 hours on a trolley in St. Helier hospital, her son paid for a private bed for her at St. Anthony's hospital, Cheam. Mildred Brown, a 77-year-old with a broken ankle, had an eight-hour wait at Wythenshawe hospital and finally went to the private Alexandra hospital in Cheadle. Why should people who have paid into the national service all their working life now have to use their last pennies to pay for private care?
  Let us tell the Secretary of State about the new experience of people who are waiting not just on hospital trolleys in casualty departments, but on ambulance trolleys. At the end of December, patients at Llandough hospital near Penarth in south Wales had to wait 45 minutes on ambulance trolleys before being admitted because accident and emergency staff were swamped. As a result, ambulance crews had calls backing up because they were tied up at the hospital waiting for trolleys to become free.
  Let us tell the Secretary of State about the patients being discharged too early—the patients being sent out from Bristol royal infirmary in the middle of the night to make way for emergencies that the hospital could not accommodate. Let us tell him about the search for intensive care beds around the country. A child was taken to Sunderland general hospital with breathing difficulties, but because no intensive care beds were available in Tyne and Wear he had to be driven 120 miles to Scotland to find a place to be treated. Edna Harrison was treated at St. James's hospital Leeds after suffering a heart attack. She was unable to be admitted because all 13 intensive care beds were taken. She was then taken 60 miles by ambulance to Hull after two hospitals were unable to find her a bed. Those are examples of the search around the country for beds in accident and emergency or intensive care units.
  Let us tell the right hon. Gentleman about cancelled operations—about Queenie Harrild, the 69-year-old heart operation patient from Lewisham who died after her operation was cancelled four times in 11 days, or about the 3,000 non-urgent operations cancelled or postponed at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, including in some cases patients in severe pain. Four major hospitals in Wales are now closed to non-emergency cases. In Nottingham, the Queen's medical centre has said that only emergency and life-threatening cases will be admitted until further notice. The North Staffordshire Hospital NHS trust has said that all elective surgery has been cancelled until further notice.
  748
  That is the reality of what is happening up and down the country, affecting patients and hospitals. For the Secretary of State and the Government to claim that everything is hunky-dory is to fly in the face of the real experience of real people and real patients.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Perhaps I may give the hon. Gentleman another example—that of my father, who was dying of cancer when the last Labour Government were in power. It was not a doctor who decided what he could be fed when in hospital, but a trade union official who decided that he could not be given soup, which he could swallow, but that he would have to be given hard-boiled eggs, which he could not swallow. He died. That is one of the reasons why people like me will never believe that the health service can be safe in Labour's hands.
  Mr. Smith: Any such imposition by anyone on any patient is completely unacceptable and no one would argue to the contrary. We argue that the current state of the health service shows that it is not in good hands. The evidence of what is happening to patients clearly demonstrates that. The Secretary of State says that people have long memories, and that is true: they know what the Government have done to the national health service and they will remember it when they come to the ballot box.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) painstakingly carried out a survey on the state of paediatric intensive care. We talked to hospital after hospital and established the precise figures in each case. The Government have said that the figures are complete nonsense and the Prime Minister airily dismissed them at Prime Minister's Question Time, but they are not complete nonsense: we have a recording of every telephone conversation with every one of the 19 hospitals that provided information and we know precisely how many children each of those hospitals has had to turn away.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Gentleman does not accept the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but does he disagree with the chairman of the British Paediatric Intensive Care Society, Dr. David Hallworth? My right hon. Friend quoted Dr. Hallworth, who said:
  "Figures in isolation are pretty meaningless."
  Mr. Smith: I disagree with the application of that point to Labour's figures.
  Mr. Dorrell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: In an act of unusual generosity, I will give way to the Secretary of State again.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he rejects the advice of the chairman of the British Paediatric Intensive Care Society—a man who devotes his life to providing the sort of care that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whose advice he does take?
  Mr. Smith: The advice I certainly do not take is that of the Secretary of State, who obviously did not hear what

  749
  I said. I said that I did not agree with the application of that remark to the figures that Labour has produced. The figures were accurate and painstakingly collected—
  Mr. Dorrell: They tell us nothing.
  Mr. Smith: They actually tell us an awful lot. They tell us that children referred to paediatric intensive care units near where they live and where they can get immediate treatment are being told, by hospital after hospital, that they cannot be seen there. Quite possibly they get a bed somewhere else eventually—100 or 200 miles away—but that is not an adequate response to the needs of very sick children.
  Mr. Dorrell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no child who needed intensive care and was referred to the emergency bed service was denied intensive care? Will he also tell the House, if that is not the right standard, what standard he would apply to the service?
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State has quoted one paediatric intensive care consultant to me. I will quote another to him. Dr. Mark Darowski, paediatric intensive care consultant at Leeds general infirmary, says:
  "Mr. Dowell has not learnt the lessons of last winter".
  He told the Yorkshire Evening Post on 4 January:
  "It is just luck that we have not had another Nicholas Geldard. On New Year's eve there was one paediatric intensive care bed available in the whole of the North of England. We've been operating at 100 per cent. and only luck has prevented the system crashing."
  It is all very well the Secretary of State claiming that there have been only 40 referrals to the intensive bed central monitoring unit over this period—nothing like the figures that the Labour party has produced. He ignores the fact that many referrals are made outside the centralised system—
  Mr. Dorrell: Successfully.
  Mr. Smith: I do not call it success when children have to be carted from one end of the country to the other to find intensive care beds.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I remind the House that Dr. Mark Darowski was the doctor who admitted Nicholas Geldard to Leeds general infirmary and who had the unpleasant task of telling the child's parents that he had died on his way over the Pennines through a snowstorm. A year ago Dr. Darowski wrote to me drawing my attention to the fact that the regional health authority, just before it was abolished, recommended that the Northern and Yorkshire region needed seven additional paediatric intensive care beds to meet patient demand. Since then, just one has been provided. Surely the Secretary of State must explain how the promise that he gave the House in the spring of last year is to be kept.
  Mr. Smith: I have the Secretary of State's words of 6 March 1996 in front of me. He said:
  "There is no doubt about the need now to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. It will be done".—[Official Report, 6 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 360.]
  750
  Certainly, the Secretary of State organised a report which was published and put in the Library of the House a couple of months after his statement. About 20 more beds were provided around the country—
  Mr. Dorrell: Thirty, actually.
  Mr. Smith: The latest Library figure was 20. In any event, it is welcome news that more beds have been provided, but it is clear from what happened this winter that we still do not have a proper service. It would behove the Government rather more, instead of trying to bluster their way out of the problem, to admit that the service is not yet adequate and tell us how they intend to make it so.
  One of the problems is that the Government do not know what is happening in relation to many aspects of health care. It is interesting that they can now give us precise figures for paediatric intensive care beds. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich asked, in a parliamentary question on 12 December last year, how many paediatric intensive care beds there were in this country, the Secretary of State replied that the information was not held centrally. He can tell us how many extra beds the Government have created since his statement of 6 March last year, so perhaps he can now say that the information is held centrally. It is important that it should be held centrally for the proper planning of serious emergency services. I shall return to that point in a moment because it is not the only area in which the Government do not know what is happening.
  It may be because the Government do not know what is happening within the health service that they blithely claim that everything is going wonderfully well. I was struck at Prime Minister's Question Time when, in response to an Opposition question about the Government's handling of the national health service, the Prime Minister's final remark was that this was a success story. How can it be a success story when patients have to wait on hospital trolleys or ambulance trolleys, operations are cancelled, beds are closed, accident and emergency services are in crisis and children are being sent halfway across the country for paediatric intensive care? I do not call that a success story.
  The Secretary of State told the "Today" programme this morning that the NHS is improving year by year. I do not call it improvement. In the real world, people who work in the health service are struggling in the face of ferocious odds to preserve a decent service, provision for ordinary people is collapsing, operations are being cancelled in hospital after hospital and in many parts of the country it is now impossible to get elective general surgery before the next financial year.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: This morning I contacted hospitals in Leeds to find out why a constituent of mine who has been waiting 14 months for heart bypass surgery had been sent a letter saying that he could not have the surgery in the foreseeable future, but that if he went to Leicester he could have it in two or three months' time. I understand that all Calderdale patients waiting for heart bypass surgery are in exactly the same position. That is the reality of Conservative health care.
  Mr. Smith: That is, indeed, the reality of what is now happening. It is even worse because not only are

  751
  distinctions made between people in different areas, depending on their hospital or health authority, but distinctions are also made between availability of and access to treatment, depending on the general practitioner. GP fundholders' patients who happen to come under the aegis of Lincoln county hospital can have their out-patient appointments within the following month, but patients of a non-fundholding GP cannot have an out-patient appointment until the next financial year. Not only are people told that they must wait months for operations or out-patient appointments, but they are treated differently even though they have the same medical condition. The health service was supposed to treat people according to need, not according to where they happen to live or the type of GP that they happen to have.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: Is my hon. Friend aware that at Hull royal infirmary the unit which deals with coronary cases is no longer making forward appointments? I am advised that that is because the beds are being used for orthopaedic and medical cases.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend gives me information of which I was not aware, but it adds to the overall picture of the condition of the NHS.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State does not realise what is going on, as he has had other things on his mind. One day during the Christmas and new year recess, he popped up on our television screens as the Conservative spokesman on the family. A couple of days later, he popped up on the radio as the Conservative spokesman on the constitution. A few days after that, he decided to give us his considered views on Europe, which do not appear to have done him much good with either wing of his party. While all that frenetic activity was going on, it is small wonder that the NHS was falling to pieces without the Secretary of State noticing.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his view that much in the health service is not going right. It is difficult to take an objective view of the aspects that have or have not improved; many aspects have improved. Does he object to the idea that I proposed to him—that we should try to separate the argument from the facts, and that we take out of the political arena an assessment of what the NHS has by way of beds and hospital capacity and what it needs? We should get independent people to examine that, so that we can argue on the basis of objective, agreed facts, and not on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's political views, mine or those of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Smith: I hesitate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the last time that a supposedly objective examination was conducted, it was carried out by a character called Professor Tomlinson in relation to London's hospital provision. I am not sure that a repetition of that exercise would be helpful. However, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. A proper assessment of provision across the country, conducted as far outside the political football arena as possible, would be a sensible approach. I am not sure that I would go along with him in saying that everything
  752
  should freeze while that was under way, but I welcome his approach and look forward to further discussions with him.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the dying days of the last Labour Government, which seems a long time ago, as indeed it is, the foundations were laid for the collection and collation of NHS statistics—for example, for finished consultant episodes? How can he therefore take issue with the basis on which the facts are produced?
  Mr. Smith: I do take issue with the basis upon which many facts are produced. I have no particular quarrel with using a finished consultant episodes accounting mechanism, provided that it is made clear that it does not refer to the number of patients treated. That is the fatal conflation that the Government always make: they take the finished consultant episodes figures and, because they have increased, claim that the number of patients treated has also increased—ignoring the fact that they do not know how many patient readmissions form part of the finished consultant episode figures.
  We have insufficient information about the level of NHS readmissions at present. We should have those figures, as they are good indicators of how well or how poorly patient treatments are working. However, that information is not held. The Government should be more accurate in their language, instead of talking breezily about patient numbers when they are really talking about the number of treatment episodes.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I can speak from personal experience as I have been a patient in many hospitals over the years. In some hospitals, the readmissions figure can be as high as 20 per cent. on surgery wards. That is a substantial figure which totally destroys the credibility of any statistics produced in that area.
  Mr. Smith: Absolutely. A major problem is that the internal market—to which I shall refer in a moment—places intense pressure on hospitals to get patients through as quickly as possible. Inevitably, that means that patients who enter hospital for a course of treatment are often sent home too early—particularly elderly patients who are unable to recuperate as quickly as younger patients. Such patients often receive no proper support at home and are unable to recover properly. As a result, they end up back in hospital four or five weeks later. That is wonderful for the Government's statistics, because they count that readmission as another patient, but the quality of care provided is not good and the overall cost to the health service is increased. That is one way in which the operation of the internal market acts as a distorting pressure on the system at present.
  I said earlier that the Secretary of State does not seem to know what is happening in the health service. His lack of knowledge about the NHS is extremely revealing. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich tabled a series of parliamentary questions and received a bonanza of answers on 12 December 1996. They showed that the Secretary of State does not have a lot of basic information about the current nature and form of the health service.
  For example, my hon. Friend asked about the number of acute hospitals in each health authority area. That is a fairly simple question. My hon. Friend the Member for

  753
  Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked earlier about the number of hospitals that have closed since 1979. Ministers did not know the answer to that question, but perhaps they know how many hospitals the national health service comprises—after all, they are supposed be in charge of the NHS. However, we were told that the information "is not held centrally." When we asked how many community hospitals are in the national health service, the answer was the same. We asked how many ambulances are owned by ambulance services across the country—that is fairly basic information—but we were told that the information is not held centrally. We asked how many acute hospitals have been closed in the past five years—a matter of intense interest to many local communities throughout the country—but again the Government replied that the information is not held centrally.
  Given the promises that the Secretary of State made last March on intensive care and on accident and emergency care, we asked how many intensive care units there are in each health authority area. We were told that the information is not held centrally. The Government do not know how many intensive care beds there are in each health authority area, or how many paediatric intensive care units or beds there are. They do not know the number of nurses who have ceased to practise in each of the past six years or the number of trusts that have cancelled elective surgery until the end of the current financial year.
  The Government have placed every possible emphasis on the cost of operations in the health service and on how the internal market will sort it out, but they do not know the average cost of a hip replacement operation in England. Given all that the Secretary of State does not know about the health service, it is no surprise that he presides over a health service that is in such a disastrous condition.
  The principal problem, of course, lies in the operation of the internal market, which has led to the fragmentation of decision making and directly to the problems in intensive care and accident and emergency services that we have seen in the past few weeks. It means that there cannot be the overall look that we need and which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) advocates. It has also led to a loss of beds—a fall of 24 per cent. overall in England since the changes were introduced. The chairman of the British Medical Association council laid the blame for that squarely on the internal market. Hospitals are downsizing their capacity to the minimum, rather like airlines double-booking many of their seats.
  The internal market has also led to a distortion of clinical priorities. I will cite just one example—Glenfield Hospital NHS trust, in Leicester, which issued a letter on 7 January to local general practitioners. It is interesting to note that the letter was issued to GPs who are covered by health authority contracting. It was sent only to non-fundholding GPs. Fundholding GPs are exempt from the letter, which begins:
  "After several weeks of negotiation, this Trust has reluctantly reached agreement with Leicestershire Health, Southern Derbyshire Health Authority and North Nottinghamshire Health Authority, to restrict services. With immediate effect, for Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery"—
  we are talking about serious surgery—
  754
  "only emergency patients and those potentially breaching the 12 month Patient's Charter guarantee, will be admitted. This restriction will apply until 31st March 1997."
  This action is not being taken because of any wish to do so on the hospital's part. The letter continues, and this is the real sting in the tail:
  "It does not reflect this hospital's capacity to treat patients. We have the capacity to perform all the work which GPs could refer to us".
  Do we not live in a crazy world? We have a hospital which says that it has the capacity to carry out all the work that GPs in cardiology could refer to it. We know that there are patients who need treatment. Yet because of the procedures and rules of the internal market the hospital must close its doors to those patients. The internal market distorts priorities within the health service.
  Mrs. Mahon: I spoke earlier about patients from Calderdale who cannot have their operations performed in Leeds. The letter from Leeds General infirmary reads:
  "Your local health authority has found a suitable alternative hospital which is … the Glenfield Cardiac Unit in Leicester."
  It would seem that patients from Calderdale who cannot get into the Leeds infirmary until after July will be taken to Leicester, where local patients cannot be operated upon because a restriction has been placed on their local hospital. That is mad.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, whose information I did not know, redoubles the force of my argument about the absurdity of the way in which the market system that the Government have imposed on the NHS is distorting the manner in which the NHS operates.
  The market system has led also to spiralling bureaucratic costs amounting to £1.5 billion a year. That is the British Medical Association's estimate, not one produced by the Opposition. That is the cost of the bureaucratic procedures of the internal market. That is why our proposals for the replacement of single-practice GP fundholding by locality commissioning, a move from annual contracts to three to five-year agreements, with agreements based on the process of co-operation rather than competition, an end to the system of individual invoicing and reducing to one tenth the number of contracts swimming around in the system, will all help to reduce the bureaucratic costs. The money saved can be diverted into patient care.
  Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Smith: I want to make progress because I have given way on many occasions. I shall, however, give way briefly to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Ewing: Exactly how much money does the hon. Gentleman expect will come from the savings that he has outlined and how quickly will it move into the system? We have heard a clear statement from an Opposition Treasury spokesperson that there will be no additional funding. It is important that we know what is being promised by the Labour party and the time scale involved.
  Mr. Smith: As the hon. Lady knows, we have identified an immediate £100 million which, as a start,

  755
  we shall take from the system's bureaucratic costs. I believe that more money will be available by reducing bureaucracy after that start has been made. The early target is £100 million. I believe that that money can be better spent on patient care.
  The answer to many of the problems that we are seeing lies, first, in recognising that there is a crisis. It would help if the Government would admit that they are facing some problems. It would help also if they would stop being quite so complacent and smug as the Secretary of State can sometimes be. Secondly, they need to end internal market procedures, with the distortions that they bring to patient care.
  Thirdly, we need to bring back strategic thinking and preparation into the health service. Fourthly, we need to end the inequity between patients that we all too often see. Fifthly, we need to divert money from wasteful bureaucracy and transfer it into patient care. That is the way forward.
  The chairman of the BMA council put it rather well on 11 October. This is the leading voice of the medical profession, not the Labour party's voice. He said:
  "We are facing the most difficult winter in the NHS since the internal market was introduced."
  It is not as though the Government were not warned. He continued:
  "We need to reform the market, eliminate the perverse effects of competition, restore co-operation and stability to hospital and community health services and begin the task of rebuilding a comprehensive national service where patients' clinical needs come first".
  I do not disagree with any of his sentiments.
  What Sandy Macara could not say, but the British people can, is that there is a sixth requirement in order to restore and rescue the NHS, and that is a Labour Government. Labour created the national health service—even the Prime Minister had to accept that this afternoon—in the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party, and a Labour Government will rescue and renew it. The Labour party will fulfil its fundamental aim of restoring the NHS so that it is run not as a commercial business flooded with paperwork—as it has become under the present Government—but as a public service that puts patients first.
  4.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the National Health Service is providing high quality care to more patients than ever before; congratulates the dedication and professionalism of the National Health Service's staff during the recent cold weather which has placed exceptional demands upon them; believes that the National Health Service requires a growing budget for patient care and therefore welcomes the Health Service Guarantee given by the Prime Minister to increase spending on the National Health Service in real terms in each of the next five years, including an extra £1.6 billion for patient care in 1997–98; and believes that this guarantee reinforces the Government's consistent record of investment in the National Health Service and its professional staff."
  The speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) shows why Labour is about to lose the fifth general election in a row. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that all that is required of him on these occasions is to parade a few individual cases
  756
  that are supported by incomplete facts, make a half-researched charge about the Government's record, wave a shroud, repeat the mantra that Labour will abolish the internal market and base metal will be transformed into gold. He thinks that Labour's claims will be vindicated by that process. His predecessor, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), never carried conviction when she had the job. We expected more and better of the hon. Gentleman, but we have been disappointed every time he has come to the Dispatch Box, and we were disappointed again this afternoon.
  Labour's approach is best summarised by referring to the war of Jennifer's ear, which was the technique that discredited Labour in the run-up to the last election. It did not work: Labour Members were found out then, and they will be found out again. If they want to be taken seriously on health, they should say what they would do about it. So far, they have shown a taste for the politics of the gutter. They play on public emotions and fear, run down the efforts of the dedicated professional staff of the health service and cover the whole concoction with a thin veneer of synthetic concern. They believe that that will suffice in place of a health policy. It is the politics of perpetual opposition, which is clearly what the hon. Gentleman is preparing for.
  I shall consider the issues raised by Labour from the Dispatch Box, and I shall begin with paediatric intensive care. In its press release, Labour says:
  "Over 400 children turned away".
  That is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts, and it is specifically designed to cause maximum concern and alarm among parents of young children.
  The facts about what has actually happened in paediatric intensive care are clear. Last spring, I assured the House that we would increase the total number of places available for paediatric intensive care, and that is what we have done. There were then 249 beds in paediatric intensive care and high-dependency care, and there are now 279 beds—as I said in May there would be by this time this year. I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury if he was not provided with those figures. He has my assurance that he will be provided with them if he asks a further parliamentary question. I gave the House an assurance in May that those beds would be provided, and provided they have been. The Government have nothing to conceal on paediatric intensive care.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Are those beds going to the regions in which they were promised? I do not think so. I do not think that the Leeds paediatric intensive care unit, about which we have had correspondence, has had the increase that was anticipated. When I visited that unit a year ago it had five beds, but it could have accommodated six at a squeeze. The Secretary of State says that it now has six beds, but it had that capacity before; has it the resources to take care of six beds?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is becoming far too long for an intervention.
  Mr. Dorrell: I published the commitments that the Government had given in May last year. There is a

  757
  published document on the record. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question about the availability of paediatric intensive care and high-dependency care by region, we will provide the information and he can test it against the undertakings that were given at that time. If he again studies the document that I published in May, he should also note the emphasis that I placed on the availability of both bed space and proper retrieval systems, providing ambulances to take children needing intensive care who are in hospitals that cannot provide beds to meet their needs to the hospitals that are best able to meet those needs.
  This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition said from the Dispatch Box that I had given an assurance that every child who needed intensive care would be provided with it in the hospital to which that child reported. I never gave that assurance, and the fact is that no responsible Health Secretary could ever give it. Such an assurance would not be supported by the paediatric intensivists who know how to deliver high-quality care to children in that condition. The service that they want to deliver is based on specialist paediatric intensive care units with proper ambulance services to take children to the units best placed to meet their needs. That is the assurance that I gave the House in May, and it is the assurance that the Government are in the process of delivering.
  The doctor whom the Prime Minister quoted at Prime Minister's Question Time is the chairman of the Paediatric Intensive Care Society—the leader of the group of doctors responsible for delivering this service. Let me repeat his words:
  "I don't think this should be subject to party political point scoring. To look at something in isolation as they"—
  the Labour party—
  "are apparently attempting to do is wrong, because it doesn't give the whole picture."
  The Opposition motion seeks an all-party approach to some of the key health issues. I accept that, because what I have set out to do in paediatric intensive care is deliver the pledge that I gave the House last spring. I believe that the best measure of the delivery of that pledge is that no child—
  Mr. Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I will finish this point before I give way to the hon. Gentleman. His Front Benchers allege that his party is interested in paediatric intensive care, and I am replying to their concerns.
  Last May, I gave the House an assurance that we would establish a proper basis for the provision of paediatric intensive care. Since 1 December, when we established the computer bed clearance system that I undertook to deliver then, not one child has had a need for intensive care confirmed by a clinician and then not been offered bed space. Indeed, since that date 40 cases have been referred to the emergency bed service, and on each occasion we were able to offer at least two paediatric intensive care units to accept the transfer—not just one, but two. I believe that such a paediatric intensive care service, delivered through the national health service, can be seen to be addressing the real needs of children who require intensive care.
  758
  I might have hoped that, if the Labour party was seriously interested in the issue, it would—rather than seeking to make cheap party points—welcome the improvement in the quality of the delivery of the service for which the Government have been responsible over the past 12 months.
  Mr. Bayley: This afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that we should not be unduly concerned about 400 children being turned away from paediatric intensive care, because they were all found intensive care beds elsewhere. I am told by the head of a paediatric intensive care unit that, although of course all those seriously ill children were found intensive care beds elsewhere, they were not all found paediatric intensive care beds. Some were placed in ordinary intensive care beds, which are not at all the same thing and which are not designed to meet the intensive care needs of children. Will the Secretary of State clarify the position, and tell the House whether a paediatric intensive care bed was provided for each of those 400 children?
  Mr. Dorrell: I remember, when this issue was the subject of intense debate last spring, being engaged in a studio discussion with Professor Sir Roy Calne, who made the clear point that, in his view, the best way of treating a child who did not have access to paediatric intensive care was to provide that child with a place in an adult intensive care unit.
  If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, I still rest my case on the proposition that we have put in place an expansion of paediatric intensive care provision—as we said that we would—and the monitoring system for which the Labour party press release calls. In fact, the gentleman whom Labour spokesmen have been so keen to brush aside in their comments this afternoon is the chairman of precisely the monitoring system called for in the press release. We have put all that in place in order to deliver the commitment to parents of young children that children who need intensive care will be provided with such care by the national health service.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I will give way once more on this subject; then I will move on.
  Mr. Mullin: I think everyone accepts that it is not always possible for a particular intensive care unit to accommodate a patient, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 120 miles that a 20-month-old child in Sunderland was taken by ambulance was too far? It was a hazardous journey, as the child was having difficulty breathing. On the way back, the ambulance broke down; had that happened when the child was on its way to the hospital, the outcome might have been different.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says that 120 miles was too far, but I am pleased to say that I am told that the child is now at home, out of danger and making a full recovery. It is rather difficult to argue that the distance travelled was too far if the case has a successful outcome. The hon. Gentleman's argument is undermined by what actually happened.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Let me pursue the point a little further. Is the Secretary of State saying that every single

  759
  one of the 400 paediatric intensive care applicants whom we identified as having been turned away from various units ended up—to his certain knowledge—in a paediatric intensive care bed?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I am certainly not saying that. There are numerous examples of clinicians ringing a paediatric intensive care unit to discuss a case, and then agreeing that intensive care is not needed in that particular case. There are a number of reasons why children are refused admission following telephone conversations of the kind that the Labour party has been counting.
  If the Labour party would stop making cheap points and listen to the chairman of the Paediatric Intensive Care Society, the hon. Gentleman would find that the statement on the Press Association wires answers his point very directly. As I have said, there are a number of reasons why cases are not admitted to paediatric intensive care following discussion between clinicians. What I am saying is that if, in the opinion of the clinician caring for a child, that child needs intensive care, I imagine that—failing to find any other bed—the clinician would use the emergency bed service which was established precisely to meet the need he feels he has on behalf of his patient. If we use that test—earlier, I invited the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to define any other test—40 cases were referred, every one of which was offered at least two options.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I want to deal with other emergency services.
  It is true that, since Christmas, the national health service has been under pressure. I do not seek to deny that; it regularly happens during the first few weeks of the year, and it is not difficult to see why the emergency services are affected in that way. There were two weeks of extremely cold weather at the beginning of the year and there has been a high incidence of 'flu. As a result of those developments, some hospitals have admitted emergency cases at roughly double, and in some cases more than double, their normal admission rate for this time of year. The emergency services have been working under considerable pressure and I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses, therapists and managers who kept the service working through that period to ensure that the emergency need was met.
  It is not right to seek to create the impression that nothing has been done to meet the peaks of emergency demand that have been experienced over the past few weeks. Plans have been made and acted on to ensure that the health service meets the peaks of emergency demand. This winter, as it does every winter, the NHS has taken the steps that are necessary to meet those emergency peaks. One such step is to delay less urgent cases. If there is a doubling of the emergency admission need at a hospital, the rational response is to delay some less urgent admissions for a week or two. That has certainly been done.
  We have also provided short-term extra bed capacity. In Dartford, we provided an extra 33 beds; in Ashford, an extra 40; in St. Helier, an extra 35; in Poole, an extra 18; in Derriford, an extra 11; in Plymouth, an extra 35; in
  760
  Rotherham, an extra 33; in Doncaster, an extra 38; in Mansfield, an extra 28; in Burton, an extra 16; and in the north-west region we provided a total of 200 extra beds.
  Faced with emergency pressures, the health service has acted rationally by deferring less urgent cases and opening short-term ward capacity, as it planned to do when it thought during the summer and autumn about winter pressures and about how to meet the peaks of demand that are experienced at this time of year. Some other responses have been set out by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts in the press release issued this morning which deals with the winter emergency in the health service.
  I had hoped that, as that was the subject of the Opposition debate, they might refer to what health authorities and trusts have done to meet the winter peak of emergency pressure. There is a page and a half of specific changes that have been made by health authority and trust managers to meet those peaks. The Opposition have not referred to that report by NAHAT, because, although the health authorities have been under pressure, the report concludes:
  "Undoubtedly, despite the problems, the service generally has been maintained".
  Faced with emergency peaks, the NHS has taken action to respond and, overwhelmingly, the story is of the service meeting the emergency need that has been placed upon it.
  Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State says that all the right preparations were made. If that is so, why did his Department get into such a pickle over 'flu vaccine? Apparently it did not order enough vaccine and issued instructions to hospitals to be careful about which members of staff it was given to, to ensure that enough was available for patients and old people. Is not the result that when 'flu increased—as it is likely to do in winter—more staff than necessary went down with it and there was more pressure on staff numbers and patient care suffered? Why were there no preparations for that? It should have been easy for anybody to predict what would happen during the winter months.
  Mr. Dorrell: The 'flu vaccination programme has been running for many years and, rationally, focuses on those who are at risk. Of course, we all run the risk of experiencing a bout of 'flu, but for most of us there is no serious health risk associated with it. For the elderly and others for whom a serious health risk is associated, 'flu vaccination is available. The health service has pursued that policy for many years.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the steps that have been taken since March to improve paediatric and general intensive care. On the best current information, what is the Secretary of State's assessment of whether there are enough paediatric intensive care beds to ensure that no parent runs the risk of his child not being admitted, which is what we all wish? Are there enough intensive care beds throughout the country? If the answer to the second question is yes, something is wrong when people die in hospitals such as Guy's in my constituency after being told that there is no intensive care bed there. The right hon. Gentleman's answer would enable us to judge whether we have arrived or whether we are still on the way to providing the service that the NHS should supply.
  Mr. Dorrell: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's question is that it implies that there is a final answer to

  761
  these problems, and that is not the case. He asked whether we have arrived. Last spring, I took the best advice available on the extra intensive care places that were needed to deliver the service that I wanted. I also set up a process for continual assessment. The gentleman who has been quoted so much in the debate is responsible for the special committee that is analysing the current situation and for producing a report that will allow us to project the question further and see what, if anything, needs to happen next.
  Our analysis last spring led to the conclusions that I announced at that time. They were widely welcomed in the field and they have been delivered. The Government have made clear their commitment to an expansion of the adult intensive care service. That is why I made two announcements following the Budget. First, I announced a targeted fund to support the growth of intensive care facilities, and especially such facilities for adults, in the next financial year. Secondly, just after Christmas I announced a £4 million fund to bring forward that expansion of intensive care into the current financial year. I announced the distribution of the money and said that it would be used to deliver almost 100 extra adult intensive and high-dependency beds in the last quarter of this financial year. The process is one of growth and assessment of need, but we can never reach the final destination, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) implies in his question.
  Mental health is a key part of the national health service. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is no longer in her place, said that for too long, under Governments of every political complexion, mental health has been the Cinderella service of the NHS. But the Government have raised the priority of mental health and we have made clear our determination to improve the quality of the mental health care that is delivered by the NHS. We have not merely accepted the central recommendation of today's King's Fund report, but have announced our intention to implement it as soon as that is possible, on 1 April.
  From that date, the NHS cash distribution formula will reflect the differing needs of different parts of the country for community health services. That central recommendation of the report has been implemented and will lead to increased resources being targeted at mental health problems, especially in inner London. That is the latest of a series of initiatives over the past few years, the effect of which has been to strengthen the commitment and raise the priority that the health service attaches to mental health.
  The mental illness specific grant, introduced six years ago, is now supporting about £100 million of extra expenditure by social service departments on mental illness provision. The national health service challenge fund, which I introduced for the first time in the current financial year, has been extended into next year and will then be supporting £25 million of new expenditure by the NHS.
  In this year's Budget, I introduced a special fund to improve the provision for mentally disordered offenders, which is a particular problem in inner London, particularly east London and south-east London. That is a targeted fund addressing one of the specific needs
  762
  identified by the King's Fund report. As is now widely known, within the next few weeks the Government will introduce a Green Paper canvassing options for the strengthening of the management of the mental health service.
  I have never made any secret of my recognition of the fact that, under Governments of all political complexions, mental health services have not been accorded the priority that we should have seen over the past few years. That is a weakness that the Government have acted to remedy, and I had hoped that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would welcome that.
  The Labour party's charges on the health service do not add up, but there is something more serious than that about the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury: as everybody knows, this Parliament does not have much longer to run and, when the election comes, the electorate will ask both major parties and the Liberal Democrats about their policies. Behind all the bluster and cases such as Jennifer's ear and the updated version of that, they will want to know the health policy that the Labour party is offering to the people of this country. When that is the question asked, we are faced with a gaping void.
  The first question must be about money. Let me remind the House of the Government's record on financial support for the health service. Since 1979, there has been an increase of roughly three quarters in the real budget available to the NHS. That represents 3 per cent. real-terms growth on average every year over the past 18 years. That is the Conservative's record of commitment to the NHS. I remind the House again of the Prime Minister's pledge to our party conference to continue real-terms growth year on year on year through the five years of the next Parliament.
  We then come to what the Labour party offers in reply. The editorial of The Guardian said that the Labour party
  "needs to match the Tory spending promise. Honouring next year's settlement is meaningless—Labour can hardly take away money already promised. What it must do is match the Tory five-year promise: real increases, year on year on year."
  That is the challenge that comes from a newspaper that Labour must be hoping will support it in the general election campaign. The same challenge is posed by Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats and all around the community. They want to know whether the Labour party will set out clearly its commitment to a real, growing national health service. The Labour party never answers that question. It dodges and fudges and finds a formula to get around it, but will it answer it? Will it hell. That is the question that will be asked by every elector in every public meeting attended by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. They will be asking him why he will not match the Tory party pledge for a real growth in the national health service.
  Mr. Chris Smith: It would help if the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had not already broken that pledge. The Red Book shows that they have.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that, but it is absolute nonsense. The Red Book sets out clearly—I can give the hon. Gentleman the correct reference—a budget that represents real growth year by year, throughout the three years of that spending

  763
  programme. Furthermore, I can give a commitment that there will be real growth of the health service budget through not only the three years of that spending programme but the remaining years of the next Parliament. That is the commitment that we have given and delivered through 18 years. We give the same commitment for the five years of the next Parliament and the Labour party will not match it.
  Ms Jean Corston rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I will give way when I have finished dealing with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on funding.
  When Colin Brown was writing in one of the health service magazines recently, he said that the Labour party
  "should fight again to keep the Tory promise alive for future years so that he"—
  the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—
  "can promise that every year, year on year, Labour will increase spending on the national health service in real terms. I bet he can't."
  Well Colin, no bets, because that is a pledge that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not allow the Labour party to make.
  Ms Corston: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of Bristol will judge the Government on their record, not just on the rhetoric of Front-Bench spokesmen? On the night of 5 January, 10 patients at Bristol royal infirmary were asked to get out of their beds after 10 o'clock at night because their beds were needed for other patients who were waiting on trolleys. One of them was a man in his 80s. The patients were sent home in taxis or relatives were asked to collect them, sometimes as late as 2 am when the temperature was minus 2 deg. That has received widespread publicity in Bristol and has caused a great deal of anger. Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that people do not believe him when he denies that the health service is in crisis?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is not me they will not believe; it is the Labour party. The hon. Lady is trying to make me return to discussing individual cases. I will not do that. The challenge for the Labour party is to demonstrate how it will deliver a health service that matches the Government's pledge.
  It is not only a matter of total spending levels. There is worse to come when one thinks about the implications for the health service of the commitments that Labour has given. As I said at Question Time, the Labour party is committed to abolishing compulsory competitive tendering in the NHS. Such tendering is currently estimated to save £90 million on the health budget. Within the budget, which will not be growing because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not allow it, the Labour party has to earmark £90 million to pay off its trade union paymasters through the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering.
  The Labour party is also committed to the introduction of a minimum wage. When the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) held the health brief, he was honest enough to admit that that had a cost attached to it. He put that cost at about £500 million. I look forward to hearing the up-to-date estimate from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The hon. Gentleman was
  764
  chiding me about not knowing every detail of what goes on in the health service. If he can break off his private conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), he might be able to offer the House an estimate of what he believes the minimum wage will cost the health service. Can the hon. Gentleman improve on £500 million? Can he offer any analysis? He must have made an analysis. I can offer him the full resources of my Department and any information that he needs to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of that commitment to the NHS.
  The cost of that commitment is an important element in the choice that the electorate have to make. If the hon. Gentleman has not thought of that, I look forward to the correspondence that will enable us to develop a figure that we can then debate. We can then know whether that commitment will be a sensible use of health service money and whether it reflects a sensible priority in the frozen budget that the hon. Gentleman will have to put up with.
  An issue that will be of considerable concern to many of my hon. Friends and their constituents is what is to happen to the private finance initiative. The Government have made it clear within their spending plans that they are determined to deliver a major investment programme for the national health service through the PFI. We have already signed up 43 schemes with a total spend of £317 million. A further 28 schemes have been approved with a total value of £309 million. There are 150 schemes being worked up by individual trusts under the PFI. The health service investment programme for the period ahead is £2.1 billion, to be provided by private sector partners through the private finance initiative.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend willing to comment on the private finance initiative in relation to West Middlesex University hospital, which, as he and the Under-Secretary are well aware, is a matter of eager and enthusiastic interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) and to me? We very much hope that the scheme can go ahead lickety-spit without delay. Can he give us any encouragement on that matter, which is important for our constituents, so that the existing, old hospital can be replaced?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to raise his constituents' concerns about that hospital. He will know that it is one of the many schemes that local managers are preparing to meet real local need with health authority support and that the Government are determined to see carried through to projects that modernise the capital stock of the health service. I can give him every encouragement that the Government are determined to carry that through.
  The question whose answer my hon. Friend and his constituents will want to hear from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is: what would be the implications of a Labour Government for that investment programme, which is valued at a lot more than £2 billion to the future of the national health service? Will the hon. Gentleman carry on with the private finance initiative, in which case he will have to eat mountains of words—both his own and those of his hon. Friends—or will he honour those words and scrap the schemes, so that they too have to be financed out of the frozen budget that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not let him increase?

  765
  I know what is being said to the electorate in my home town of Worcester on that subject—once again, by the right hon. Member for Livingston. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury ought to have a word with the right hon. Member for Livingston, as when the latter travels around the country he appears to be rather too honest for his hon. Friend's good.
  When the right hon. Member for Livingston recently visited Worcester, he made it crystal clear that, if the Worcester scheme went ahead before election day, as I know the citizens of Worcester hope, Labour would honour it; but if the contract was not signed by election day, it would go out the window. Bad luck to the citizens of Worcester. For them, the slogans are, "Vote Labour. Ditch your local hospital scheme" and "Vote Labour. Cancel your hospital project". Those are the slogans on which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will go to the country, because he has no public capital—the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not provide it—and he is not committed to the future of the private finance initiative, so he will not get it from that source either.
  Every scheme that is not signed up before election day will be out the window, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East can offer no hope that the schemes will go ahead. It is a good vote-winning message for the Tory party: "Vote Labour. Ditch your local hospital".
  Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State has told us about the 43 schemes totalling £317 million. Can he tell me in how many of those schemes work has started, which scheme is most advanced and how much money has been spent on it?
  Mr. Dorrell: Thirty-two have been finished.
  The final question is one that Labour has invented for itself. It goes to the heart of the structure of the modern national health service. When we introduced local management, the Opposition fought us every inch of the way. The present Opposition Chief Whip said that Labour was
  "implacably opposed to the provisions for hospital trusts outlined in the White Paper."—[Official Report, 11 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 696.]
  The present Labour spokesman on education said, "We will abolish trusts."
  Mr. Chris Smith: Before we move too rapidly away from the private finance initiative, will the Secretary of State confirm one or two things? First, he told the House more than a year ago that every month from then on he would announce a major new hospital scheme under the PFI. Will he admit that no such hospital has been confirmed in that intervening period? Secondly, will he confirm that in the case of the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget and was the only major hospital scheme supposedly signed up under the PFI, although the contract with the contractors has been signed, the finance has not yet been finalised? Will the right hon. Gentleman also draw a conclusion from that about how much trust the people of Worcester or anywhere else can put in this
  766
  Government to come up with actual bricks and mortar, rather than windy rhetoric about the hospitals that they are going to get?
  Mr. Dorrell: As a citizen of Worcester, I was eager to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clarify Labour's policy about the projects that rely on the continued commitment of the Government to the PFI. The citizens of Worcester need have no doubt about this Government's commitment. We are determined to deliver hospital projects through the PFI. What the citizens of Worcester—myself among them—want to hear from the hon. Gentleman is whether he is committed to those projects or whether all the £2 billion plus of projects being carried forward under the PFI would be ditched if there were a Labour Government. If that is the Labour party position, the hon. Gentleman owes it to the electorate to make it clear. Will the schemes go ahead under the PFI? Will the hon. Gentleman produce the money from the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, or are we talking about taking £2 billion out of patient care to allow those hospitals to go ahead? Or—by far the most likely option—are we talking about schemes that will go out the window if the country is misguided enough to elect a Labour Government?
  Sir Raymond Whitney: In pursuance of that question, to which my right hon. Friend has conspicuously had no answer from the Opposition, will he remind the House that, over five years, the last Labour Government cut capital spending on the health service by 28 per cent? Does that not give us a clue to the answer to the important questions that my right hon. Friend poses?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. It was not merely the capital budget that the last Labour Government cut, however. When nurses are considering the prospects under a Labour Government, they might remind themselves that nurses' pay fell in real terms by 3 per cent. and doctors' pay by roughly a quarter under the last Labour Government. That is what the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has got lined up for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The right hon. Gentleman is refusing to provide him with any money for the national health service.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I have given way a great deal and I think that the House will want me to get through my final point.
  The final question is one that Labour has invented for itself. Labour fought local management and trust management in the health service. Now the Opposition say that they are in favour. At the same time that they fought the introduction of local management of hospitals, they were also fighting the introduction of the purchaser-provider arrangement. The present shadow education spokesman said in 1993, which is not that long ago:
  "I am vehemently against the notion, currently in vogue, of splitting administrative responsibility for health from delivery of care—divorcing regulation from provision."
  That was the position of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman a little more than three years ago. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has changed that and I give him credit for it. He is now in favour of

  767
  the purchaser-provider split—the fundamental change that was introduced in health service administration in 1991. He cannot persuade his party that he is in favour of it, however, so he has invented a new distinction: he distinguishes the purchaser-provider split from the internal market. We have the ridiculous spectacle of the hon. Gentleman saying that he is in favour of the purchaser-provider split, but against the internal market. Until the hon. Gentleman discovered that distinction, the rest of the world thought that those two phrases meant exactly the same thing. The hon. Gentleman has not begun to explain how he has discovered a difference between those two phrases which have precisely the same meaning. It is a distinction without a difference that makes the hon. Gentleman look totally ridiculous.
  Labour is in a state of total confusion. Every time the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury speaks about health, he reveals new depths of his own ignorance. With every passing day, it is becoming clearer that the hon. Gentleman is determined to continue to act like the Opposition spokesman he is destined to remain.
  The day of reckoning for the Opposition is drawing near. When the claims that they enjoy making are put under the spotlight, they melt like morning dew, and all that is left is a squalid determination to make political capital out of human misery. It is a sad commentary on the depths to which a once great party has sunk, and when polling day comes, the electorate will treat it with the contempt that it richly deserves.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I am pleased that the Secretary of State finished by talking about the private finance initiative. Such matters are part of the debate and I want to discuss them.
  The title of the White Paper launched shortly before the Christmas recess, "Choice and Opportunity", was rather interesting. My constituents, and people throughout the country, would appreciate a little more choice and opportunity in the national health service than the Government have given them over the past 17 or 18 years.
  On the previous two occasions on which I spoke on national health service issues in the Chamber, I mentioned the proposed primary health care centre in my constituency. It was promised on several occasions many years ago by the then regional health authority—now swept away by the Government—and every time that I speak on health service issues, I ask the Government when it will be built.
  The delays have arisen because of precisely those matters on which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was questioning the Secretary of State: the operation of the internal market, organisational structures in the health service that simply do not work and, most recently, the private finance initiative of which the Secretary of State has been singing the praises today.
  The latest but one phase was when the plan to build the centre was forced to go through the private finance initiative. Some time ago, I asked the Secretary of State and the Minister what were the administrative costs associated with processing that health centre, which had not yet been built, through the private finance initiative. The answer was £50,000.
  768
  When I asked the Minister what the administrative costs—supposedly associated with a value-for-money exercise—consisted of, I received the usual answer about the information not being held centrally, or something to the same effect. I was therefore referred to the trust, which told me that the £50,000 was spent on consultants' fees. Was the £50,000 well spent? Clearly not, because now we have been told that the project will go ahead with public money, because the private finance initiative did not work.
  As a result of that merry-go-round, not only has something that was promised to local people years ago been delayed time and again, but public money that could have been spent on patient care has been put into the pockets of consultants, even though the project was never appropriate for the much vaunted private finance initiative.
  That is the reality of the scheme by which the Secretary of State sets so much store. He challenges us on whether we intend to go ahead with the PFI projects, but I would like to know whether they would go ahead in the very unlikely event of the Government being re-elected. The plain fact is that projects promised under PFI do not get confirmed: not one has started in bricks and mortar.
  I want to give the Secretary of State another example of how bureaucracy has gone mad in the health service under the Conservatives and of how the PFI is operating. In Birmingham, there used to be several health authorities. Later, we had the North Birmingham and the South Birmingham health authorities, which recently merged, with the family health services authority, into a single authority for Birmingham.
  There was a problem with premises, because each of the former authorities had its own headquarters. It clearly made sense, in the interests of patient care and of ensuring that NHS resources were spent appropriately, to rationalise the buildings and save money. The health authority considered the most cost-effective and economical way of providing a single headquarters, and found an appropriate set of offices that was competitively priced and would enable it to get rid of the expensive former premises. In one of its buildings, owned by someone else, it had been given notice to quit, and in another it had installed some tenants to bring in some revenue; and it proposed that the third building could be sold. It was a rounded plan that made economic sense.
  The authority sent a costed business case to the Department of Health for moving into the new rented offices. After several weeks, or even months, it received an incredible letter saying that its plan to save money had to be processed through the private finance initiative.
  The contents of the letter sound like something straight out of a "Yes, Minister" script. It says:

  "1. Thank you for the opportunity to review the above business case. I apologise for the length of time taken in its completion.

  2. It is not clear whether the case is an OBC or an FBC. This makes it difficult to decide on the criteria against which it should be assessed. In summary, a number of issues have been raised about the failure to develop the case along the lines set out in PFI in Government Accommodation, economic appraisal issues and more general business case issues (such as failure to consider project risks and project management arrangements). These points are developed below.

  3. The status of the document needs to be clarified. Is it an Outline Business Case or is it a Full Business Case? The purpose and requirements of both documents are different.

  769

  4. The former establishes the need for the investment and identifies a preferred option (assumed at this stage to be a publicly funded option), whilst the latter evaluates methods for funding the preferred option (based on the results of the PFI procurement process). I presume this is submitted as an OBC. Apart from this difference, an FBC would also address issues centred on the management of the project (ie Benefit Realisation Plan, In-Project and Post-Project Evaluation Plan, Risk Management Plan and Contract Management Plan)."

  The letter goes on and on in that vein. It is comical to read, but it is the outcome of that bureaucratic madness. The letter was dated 27 November 1996.
  The end result is that the problem of the Birmingham health authority's accommodation is still unresolved. The only reason why it will not be sorted out is the crazy, bureaucratic rules laid down by the Department of Health. If the problem is not sorted out, the health authority will have to move out of the building that it occupies because it has been given notice to quit and does not own the building. It will have to move back to the place that it has sub-let and get rid of the tenants, thereby losing income for the NHS. It will have to pay more in rent than the cost that would have had to be paid had the Department accepted its original suggestion. That is the reality of the bureaucratic nightmare of the Government's way of running the NHS.
  One health authority, admittedly a big one, and one set of buildings—how did we get to this stage? Because the health authority was unable to pursue a simple transaction, the health service will have to pay more—money that should be going into patient care. The PFI is not a miraculous way of finding new investment for hospitals, as Ministers and Conservative Members claim. It is an incredibly expensive bureaucratic morass with unclear rules that has not yet produced one hospital, health centre or health service establishment. I am all in favour of attracting private finance to public projects and of proper partnerships, but they must work, they must be clear and they must be designed to do the job. They must not delay things and cost more money.
  Earlier, I mentioned primary care. I shall give credit to the Secretary of State for making some attempt to address that in his White Paper, some points of which are worthy of support. It was interesting that he made little reference to the matter in his speech. I am still waiting for an answer to a question that has been put to the Government several times. How do they think that the provisions in the White Paper will work?
  The White Paper suggests that general practitioners need not necessarily retain their traditional role of independent contractors in the NHS. They could become employees of other bodies, which would be the contractors to the NHS rather than individual GPs or groups of GPs. It has been acknowledged that GPs could therefore become employees of trusts. There is no problem with that if the trust concerned is a community trust involved in the provision of primary care. However, the Secretary of State has not satisfactorily dealt with the case of acute trusts that wished to employ GPs. A body whose main operation is the provision of secondary care would employ family doctors, whose job is to provide primary care.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Let me set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. General practitioners are not in the NHS; they are independent
  770
  contractors. We foresee that they may be able to organise themselves in a different way, either through another body or by coming together to provide services or most likely, as he said, through a community health trust. He asked about acute trusts. The answer, in respect not only of acute trusts but of any other organisation where a conflict of interest might arise in the proposals made, is that the conflict of interest would be recognised and we would not expect such an application to be honoured. Clearly, if there were such conflicts, they would not be desirable.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful for that answer. I shall give way again if the Minister can clarify the matter further. Groups of GPs getting together to provide expanded primary care services is potentially a good development. Labour has been pioneering such developments in talking about local commissioning teams, and local pilot teams have been working. In Birmingham, there are proposals to develop such services. Such a pattern of service would fit more easily with the locality commissioning suggested by the Opposition than grafting it on to the internal market that Conservative Members have imposed on the NHS.
  I must press the Minister further on conflicts of interest. I am pleased that he says that if there is a conflict of interest, he would not expect the application to be honoured. Is he saying that acute trusts would not be allowed to employ GPs?
  Mr. Malone indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burden: If he is not saying that, the Minister is heading down the road of conflicts of interest.
  Mr. Malone: I shall say what I said again, because it was perfectly clear. There could be applications where conflicts of interest might arise. If they did, they would be addressed at the time in the light of the individual application. I am not going to rule out an acute trust making proposals. I cannot predict whether there would be conflicts of interest. If there were, they would prevent the proposal from reaching fruition.
  Mr. Burden: I am afraid that that is not good enough. It might be just about tolerable if an acute trust employed GPs in its own area, because the pattern of referrals in a given area tends to be static and predictable. Where they can, GPs like to refer patients locally. What if an acute trust tried to contract out of area? That is where conflicts of interest would develop. Such a system could already be in place through the mechanism to which the Minister referred.
  What if private health care organisations such as PPP and BUPA wanted to set up a nice little local health centre to employ GPs? GPs would tell the Minister, if he asked them, that there can be pressure on them to refer patients to places that they do not necessarily believe will provide the best clinical services but which are often euphemistically described as the preferred providers. Private patients, perhaps those in insurance schemes, are already affected by such pressure. Currently, GPs can insist that referrals go to the place that they consider to be the most appropriate clinically.
  If we move down the road that the Government want to go down, what barrier will there be against a private health insurance firm buying up a local health centre and

  771
  employing GPs and against the employer putting pressure on its employees—the GPs—to refer patients to places that are not the most clinically appropriate in the judgment of GPs but that are the preferred providers in the interests of the employer? Those issues need to be addressed. I raise the matter today because when the Secretary of State talks of ensuring that there is a primary care-led NHS, I believe that that is what he wants.
  The Secretary of State needs to square a circle in order to achieve his goal, but he cannot do that unless he fundamentally challenges the assumptions according to which the Government have operated the NHS. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, he said that no one had ever recognised the difference between the internal market and the separation of the commissioning of health care from the provision of it. I must tell him that most other people have always recognised that difference.
  Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what is the difference—I find it sad that he does not know. If he merely believes that the split between those who plan health services and those who provide them is equivalent to an individual contracting relationship, governed by a financial transaction, he has a problem in ensuring that the NHS keeps to the principles on which it was founded. Those principles are meant to guarantee the provision of health care, free at the point at which it is needed and to ensure equity in its provision. If the relationship between the provision and commissioning of health care is purely governed by a financial transaction, those principles cannot be adhered to. That failure is at the root of the problems of the system that the Government have imposed on the NHS.
  A new Government will fundamentally change that relationship. We shall get away from a system under which hospital is set against hospital and, increasingly, area is set against area; patient is set against patient; and GP is set against GP. We want to establish a co-operative framework for NHS planning and provision, which allows decisions to be made at the lowest possible level by those who are best able to make them.
  The NHS stands or falls by its own recognition of the fact that it is a national service. It must recognise that each branch is dependent on another, be it the doctor who is dependent on the nurse; the nurse who is dependent on ancillary staff; the GP who is dependent on the secondary care centre; or primary care that is dependent on tertiary care. That patchwork of provision, under which decisions are made locally, should be founded on a co-operative ethos, operating in the interests of the patient. That is different from a system in which the market rules, and that is why the Secretary of State is wrong when he says that there is no difference between the internal market and a system for the commissioning of health care. There is a big difference.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: Whether the hon. Gentleman realises it or not, he is proposing to take us back to the system of the 1970s with all its inefficiencies, disasters and total failure sensibly to allot resources because people were not aware of the value of those resources. The hon. Gentleman's propositions show that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of the development of the NHS.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman needs to read the policy document that my colleagues on the Front Bench
  772
  have issued about how the NHS will develop under a Labour Government. He will discover that it does not talk about turning the clock back. I agree with him that we need to learn from experience and learn certain lessons about NHS provision. We can learn some lessons from past over-centralisation, but the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be sad if he has not learnt that trying to run the NHS like some glorified supermarket has not been in the interests of patient care, clinicians, or the services. That is at the root of the internal market that has been imposed by the Government.
  The end result of that process, which was outlined ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, has been the crisis of provision of hospital beds that we have seen this winter. The system has also failed to provide the required number of paediatric intensive care beds. That has happened not by accident but because of a Government who do not understand, or refuse to understand, what a NHS is meant to be, and how it can be run in the interests of patients.
  That lack of understanding needs to be changed. In the next few weeks or months, such a change will occur with the election of a different Government.
  5.44 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I am as surprised as anyone that the Labour party has called this debate. In doing so, it was surely not unreasonable for those of us on the Conservative Benches to expect, at last, some explanation if not clarification of the Opposition's policies for the national health service. To date, we have had to contend with a mishmash of confusing ideas, coupled with the barest minimum of concrete policy decisions.
  The Labour party has had 17 years in which to produce credible ideas of its future vision for the health services. Frankly, so far, the Opposition have failed to do that. Judging by the reaction of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to the weekend reports on improving efficiency within the social services, I fear that we might have to wait a long time yet for such ideas.
  Once again, we have heard nothing of note from the official Opposition, so once again it has been the Government who have set the pace. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on continuing to run the agenda.
  Since the previous full debate in November on the health service we have had a Budget that has more than met the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to increase year by year the real level of resources committed to the NHS. We have had the Second Reading in another place of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill, when the Government were able to describe and enlarge on their policies for important developments in primary care. Since November, we have also seen the publication of the White Paper, "Delivering the Future", which set out some 70 practical proposals to further the improvement of patient care. A number of other important announcements have been made, for example, the allocation of an extra £25 million which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on Christmas eve to aid health authorities and NHS trusts with seasonal pressures. I am therefore proud to support a Government who abide by their commitment to the NHS by thought, word and deed.
  Debates on the health service are sadly characterised by selective memories—the last one was no exception. When I prepare my speeches, I do not rely on anecdotal

  773
  evidence, nor do I try to extrapolate a general picture from a single incident. I turn to the people who can give me an accurate report on the situation. I asked the Queen Elizabeth II hospital, which serves my constituency so admirably, to tell me how it coped in the past few weeks, based on its experiences.
  As many hon. Members have already said, the especially cold weather and the 'flu-like illness that took hold over Christmas increased hospital admissions. That happened on top of the already high base line of emergency admissions which, in common with other hospitals in the area, the QE II is experiencing.
  The week after Christmas was characterised by an even greater surge of emergency admissions than the typical seasonal influx that traditionally occurs from Boxing day onwards. The hospital saw many people and admitted some 50 patients compared with the average weekly figure for the year of 28 admissions. I would like to emphasise that during that incredibly busy period all elective cancer patient cases continued to be brought. Despite the exceptional number of patients who arrived at the hospital, all were admitted and treated.
  Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
  Mrs. Roe: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been present for the debate. I intend to proceed to put my case on the record.
  I repeat that despite the exceptional number of patients who arrived at the hospital, all were admitted and treated. That was achieved first and foremost by the dedication and exceptional commitment of the staff. I pay tribute to them for the personal efforts that were sometimes made over and above the call of duty—that is typical of NHS staff. The situation was complicated by the added pressure of a third of the nurses, who would normally be working, being off ill themselves.
  Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been listening to the debate. I regard it as discourteous to enter the Chamber and start intervening in the middle of the debate. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) will not endear himself to the Chair if he persists in making seated interventions.
  Mrs. Roe: Many staff were on 24-hour call and more than 100 people—nurses on holiday, staff from other trusts and members of the public—rang in to offer help after an appeal was made on the local radio for nurses to return from holiday to assist. Such was the response that services were maintained despite incredible pressures.
  The second reason the hospital was able to cope was the quality of the management. In that period of extreme difficulty, thanks to the powers invested in them by the Government, the managers were able to adopt a flexible and practical approach so that they could tailor their
  774
  response to the situation, often on a daily basis. The matron, as co-ordinator across the hospital, worked closely with the chief executive on key decisions that had to be made throughout each 24 hours to keep the hospital capable of managing the high volume of patients. The hospital's success depended on good team work.
  A team of directorate service managers and the hospital social work team managers met daily to review the situation and to make contingency plans for the next 24 hours. The hospital social workers assessed the patients daily to identify those who would need social care support to be discharged home. As a result, bed blocking was less of an issue. Arrangements were speedily put into place through utilising vacancies that appeared in social care contracts when the social services users had been admitted to hospital. In that way, beds were freed, enabling the hospital to fulfil its prime function of treating sick and injured people. Careful forward planning had already alleviated the hospital's bed blocking problem; whereas last winter the hospital experienced 40 to 50 bed blockers, this winter it experienced its lowest number yet, with 24 bed blockers going through the system.
  Team work was also vital in other areas; the ambulance service was a key factor. The director of operations for the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire ambulance service kept constant contact with the accident and emergency department. In particular, he would give early warning of the surges in patient flows as requests came in from general practitioners and the public for ambulance support. One such example was the notification on 3 January of 19 patients who were to come in two hours. That information was used to introduce contingency plans to deal with the high level of expected admissions. The staff in the accident and emergency department also played their part in effecting the smooth treatment and flow of patients.
  The majority of patients were admitted for acute medical conditions. To ensure that appropriate treatment was given as soon as possible and that discharges occurred promptly, all the consultants in the medical team carried out daily ward rounds. With delays cut to the minimum, more treatment could be given to others.
  Some contingency measures were taken, such as reopening the ophthalmic unit to provide extra beds; the children's area in the accident and emergency department was temporarily converted into a ward for adults. Children's admissions were then dealt with directly on the paediatric ward. When two emergency admissions were assessed as requiring intensive care, as all the intensive care units were full, the patients were transferred immediately to other units via the emergency intensive bed register. The matron of the Queen Elizabeth II hospital referred to the register as a "godsend" and "smashing" as it saved valuable time and energy by preventing unnecessary ringing round. The arrangements worked both ways: the hospital was able to take a patient from the register into intensive care when a space was available.
  It would be unrealistic to think that the efforts that were made to meet a period of great demand could be sustained. However, we are talking about a period of extraordinary pressure in a very short time—and the hospital was able to bear it. The way that the management coped showed the strength of good staff relationships, careful forward planning and strong internal management systems. It showed that the trust had the ability to take

  775
  and act on decisions quickly. It showed local decision making and a team pulling together at its best. Above all, it proved the Government's good sense in allowing those who manage the hospital the freedom to do so unhindered by central interference.
  Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a power cut at No. 3, Dean's yard which began earlier today. As a result, secretaries to hon. Members who work there have been unable to carry out their work properly; many of them have called it a day and gone home, to the detriment of the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members. Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask the Serjeant at Arms to report as soon as possible on what has happened and why, and to ensure that heat and light are restored by first thing tomorrow morning without fail?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I know a little about the matter and I think that it is more than a power cut. I understand that there was flooding in the building overnight and, as a result, water has got into the electrical system. I know that the Serjeant at Arms is making every effort to ensure that normal working can be resumed. I also know that Madam Speaker is aware of the situation and is keeping a close eye on it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Serjeant at Arms has many powers, but I am not sure whether he can bring back the power when it goes off.
  I welcome today's debate; it is always good to debate the national health service and it is good that the Labour party has chosen it as the subject for the third of its 17 Opposition days in the parliamentary year. At 10 o'clock my colleagues and I will vote for the motion, which has been drafted to win maximum support in the House. I hope that all Opposition Members will support it. If they are true to some of the things that they have said, one or two Conservative Members will also support the motion. If all Opposition Members are present and all Conservative Members are present, there will be a tied vote. I understand that if that were to happen tonight, following the usual precedent, the Government would survive by Madam Speaker's casting vote, although they might not do so on other occasions. It would take a Conservative Member to abstain or to vote with us for us to win—we live in hope.
  Mr. Malone: Get on with it.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister has told me to get on with the debate; I am keen to do so, but I want the Government to realise that their hold on the confidence of the House is, at most, very insecure.
  The problem is that, although everything in the motion is easily supportable, everything but the last line is criticism of the current position and the last line does not contain a positive proposal. Sadly, yet again, the Labour party, as the Secretary of State rightly said, has been weak on content, weak on performance and poor in attendance. Today is an Opposition day, but there have been more Conservative Members than Labour Members present at all times. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] It is true:
  776
  during the Secretary of State's speech, and subsequently, only five, six, seven or eight Labour Members have been present. I have been here all the time and added up the numbers regularly.
  Let me take the five points in the motion in turn. First, the Labour party argues that the internal market is the cause of all the problems in the national health service. The internal market, as designed by the Tories, has caused many problems and is the cause of many of the costs and the pressures, but it is not fair to say that it adds to all of the problems of the NHS. Many of the pressures on the NHS are caused by demand that is rising in a way that was not predicted even a few years ago.
  I acknowledge that there is bureaucracy that could be got rid of. My colleagues and I have argued that, instead of one-year contracts, there should be at least three-year contracts and I am sure that that would save a lot of time and money. We are opposed to local pay bargaining, because it imposes huge extra costs and distracts professionals from their work. However, even if the British Medical Association is right and expenditure on bureaucracy could be saved by having a redesigned NHS—albeit one that keeps purchasers and providers—and even if that saved the £1.5 billion that the BMA says would be saved, the savings could not be delivered overnight.
  The first flaw in Labour's argument is that to give only £100 million over the Government's commitment, but only for the first year, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, will clearly not begin to answer the public's concerns about the NHS. That is the fundamental flaw and after yesterday's announcement by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), I have to say that any hopes that the Labour party will deliver the resources that the NHS needs are scuppered, not only for the first year but for subsequent years.
  Whereas it has traditionally been the expectation that the Labour party would put more funds into the NHS, now, for the first time, we face a general election when it is absolutely clear that the Tory party is committed to putting in more resources in the near future than is the Labour party. The Liberal Democrats are committed to putting in even more—we have done the sums and we will do it. After the next election, if no single party has a majority of seats—we have committed ourselves to not keeping the Tories in office—we will use our votes in this place to ensure that the Labour party breaks its spending commitment not to put more money into the NHS and that more money is put in. I believe that the public will back us in that.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Labour party will not match the Government's spending pledges on the NHS—[Interruption.]—the Labour party has done so. I read with great care his article in The Guardian of 9 January in which he set out the Liberal Democrats' health policy, and it included a number of specific spending pledges, which I asked the statisticians in the House of Commons Library to cost. They tell me that their best estimate is that in 1998–99 the package of measures proposed by the Liberal Democrats would cost an additional £650 million and roughly an additional £1 billion in the following year—it depends on the level of NHS inflation. Given that the Liberal

  777
  Democrats have already committed 1p in the pound on income tax to education and given that his 5p on cigarettes will raise only £175 million—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are aware of my views on interventions—they should be short. The hon. Gentleman should seek to catch my eye and make his points in a speech of his own.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman did not quite finish, but I shall say that we have made a commitment. I shall be happy to talk to him outside the Chamber and go through the figures, but our commitment is clear. First, we have made a commitment to keep pace with NHS inflation throughout the life of the next Parliament. The Government have made a commitment only to keep pace with ordinary inflation and the Labour party has a commitment to fund only one year—the first year—at the rate of the increase in ordinary inflation. Secondly, we have committed an additional £550 million a year, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, will be raised from 5p on cigarettes, which will raise £200 million to restore free dental and eye checks, and from tax collection from employers through national insurance, which will raise £350 million.
  If NHS inflation starts to rise again, instead of decreasing, we will have to address the question of where the money will come from. However, there is absolutely no doubt—we have checked our figures with the Commons Library, too—that an analysis of the present commitments on the table of the three main parties in the House shows that the Liberal Democrats have committed far more resources than the other parties; the Tories are clearly second and the Labour party clearly third in the league table.
  Mr. Forman: Does that mean that the oft-quoted remark of the leader of the Liberal Democrats that his party would simply put 1p on the standard rate of income tax to fund its education commitment is not the Liberals' only public expenditure commitment and that the Liberals are also committed to other forms of tax increase?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be distracted from my speech, but we shall commit an extra £2 billion for education and if that has to come from an increase in income tax—1p in the pound raises about £2 billion—we shall do that. It depends on how much is in the kitty, how many people are in work, what is the social security budget and other factors, but we shall do it. We are committed to further tax increases in respect of the health service: first, imposing additional duty on cigarettes and, secondly, closing various employers national insurance loopholes. Those are tax increases for specific groups in society—they are not general. Those two specific additional commitments have been agreed by all Liberal Democrat Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who speaks for us on Treasury matters, and they are supported by my colleagues in Wales and Scotland who recognise the benefits.
  I shall now return to my speech and the five points in the motion. Secondly, I pay tribute to the fact that the NHS works because its staff operate extremely well. Throughout the country, they are under great pressure at
  778
  this time of year and they are doing an extremely good job. I was in the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford a couple of weeks ago and staff there are coping, although they have had to delay admissions and put off operations so that patients have had to stay in waiting lists. The staff are doing all that they can to manage. This morning, I was at the South Westminster health centre, which is just round the corner in Vincent square and is run by the Riverside Community Health Care NHS trust. It is an excellent health centre and is clearly doing a good job. With one of my colleagues, I went to a large GP surgery in Elephant and Castle, the Princess street group practice, which is doing an excellent job. Queenie Harrild—a constituent of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice)—died in Guy's hospital a week ago and that tragic case was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Her family specifically said that they were critical not of the staff at the hospital, but of the system and the lack of beds.
  Thirdly, it is true to say, as Labour says in its motion, that the result of current policy is that
  "government policy has left many people in urban and rural communities without the access to health care they need".
  In urban areas, that may be a lack of an intensive care bed when and where one is needed. In rural communities, it may be a lack of a dentist anywhere near one's residence or a lack of a community pharmacist. In all cases, there is a risk that an individual might find himself or herself discharged too early. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) mentioned the outrage felt in Bristol at people being woken up and sent home from hospital in the middle of the night. Of course, that is what happens to less urgent cases, but that should not be the way in which a publicly funded national health service is run.
  Mr. Hendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak.
  Fourthly, we share the Labour party's view that we need a more democratically accountable NHS. There should be regional health authorities in England, and democratic authorities in Scotland and Wales, to decide on strategic policy. They should decide whether hospitals are needed or not, instead of that being arbitrarily decided by the Secretary of State. At a local level, trusts and health authorities should be more democratic.
  Fifthly, we believe that we must restore confidence in the NHS.
  We could have tabled no amendment to the motion, or we could have just congratulated the NHS on its successes and paid tribute to the progress that it has made. Certainly, there has been progress both in paediatric intensive care and in intensive care generally. By convention only the Government amendment is selected on such occasions, but I am glad that the two ideas in our amendment were not completely dismissed either by the Secretary of State during questions today or by the shadow health spokesman when I intervened earlier.
  First, the public want the NHS to be removed from the party political battleground. I recently appeared on a Granada television programme with spokesmen from the other two main parties, and someone in the audience made precisely that point. Facts, for instance, could be removed from the battleground. We may disagree about funding,

  779
  but the facts should be agreed—for instance, about how many intensive care beds there are and how many hospitals have closed.
  Today the King's Fund issued a report on mental health. It is a well-respected independent body; perhaps we could agree to let it do this statistical work. Before the end of this Parliament, I would hope that the three major Great Britain parties, the Irish parties and the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties will agree to allow an independent, respected and recognised body to provide us with the evidence on which to base political decisions.
  Earlier today the Secretary of State referred to the report by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, the last paragraph of which reads:
  "Undoubtedly, despite the problems, the service generally has been maintained, although some elective treatments are being deferred. But however hard the NHS is working, the initiatives taken do not solve the underlying problems of capacity and demand. It can be expected that comprehensive reviews of current clinical and workload practices will be undertaken by health authorities and trusts. But overriding this is the need for a high-level review of both the current position and the implications for the future provision of services."
  That is why we need agreement on the size of supply and demand, whereupon the politicians can sort out, and put to the public, the best way of dealing with the problems.
  Of course some more funding will be needed. We calculate that if people's lives are not to be put at risk by the closure of beds, wards or hospitals in any part of the country, the finance-driven closure programmes and any consequent reductions of services must be put on hold. Doing that will cost about £350 million a year—perhaps we could achieve all-party agreement about that.
  I hope that the other political parties will respond to my twin proposals, to obtain independent information and to provide the money that will stop the running down of services. It is no good Conservative Members claiming that the Tomlinson report or the other reports commissioned by the Government are independent and objective. The Government ordered the reports; their authors reported back to the Government. The Nolan commission is more along the lines of what I have in mind—enjoying the confidence of all Members of the House.
  Tomorrow we will debate intensive care, so I do not intend to go into it now—except to comment on the fact that the Secretary of State only partly answered the questions about it. Of course the demand for intensive care will change, but we need to hear from Ministers on the record whether they think that we have enough paediatric intensive care beds and other intensive care beds to meet current needs. I hope that such a statement will be made tomorrow morning in the debate; anything less would be a fudge.
  One effect of the pressures on the health service is that many operations are deferred. People sometimes die as a result. The lady I mentioned earlier died of a heart attack which, according to the consultants, she would not have had if a bed in Guy's hospital could have been found for her to use after her heart bypass. Theatre and staff were available, but there was no intensive care bed. Thus someone with more years to live lost her life.
  Part of the solution must be to separate elective beds for non-emergency admissions from emergency beds, so as to avoid the problem of those with booked beds being put off while they serve as emergency beds.
  780
  Many of us are grateful for the universal recognition today that mental health services have been the Cinderella services of the NHS. Those who lose out most are the people with conditions that are not quite acute but are nevertheless immense. I am told wherever I go that only those who present with the most severe mental illnesses are treated, and that people whose needs are slightly less urgent but still serious do not get the service they require. Hence the need to go on building up these services. A mental illness is an illness like any other; those who suffer from mental illness deserve the NHS just as much. Yet they are often treated as lesser beings. Mental illness can come to any one of us. That is why we should ensure that those who suffer from it are given as much chance to recover as people with physical illnesses.
  Another problem arises because health authorities and trusts are eating into next year's budgets to pay for this year's, and this year they ate into last year's. I do not know whether the Government can raid the coffers before the general election; I do know that there is always a contingency fund and that, as the election draws nearer, it is eyed ever more keenly. I hope that the Secretary of State and Ministers at the Department will be able to persuade the Chancellor that as little as £200 million, if released this year, would remove some of the pressures and prevent the perpetual delays in treatment that afflict the service.
  When the election comes, it will not be about whether we should have a national health service—all the parties are signed up and committed to one. The debates will be about whether to fund it properly. I therefore end where I began. The job of politicians is to be honest with the public. The NHS will be the brilliant jewel of our welfare state only if we inject it with the necessary amount of public money. That is what will divide the parties at the election. My colleagues and I believe that if we fund health and education properly, we shall have a society that is both well and well equipped. Only that will make us the sort of successful nation that our people want us to be.
  6.17 pm
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, especially with his plea for a more sensible debate about how to go on developing and improving the national health service—a debate that will be possible only by removing the political animus from the subject. Unfortunately, the Labour party is incapable of that.
  We have heard two depressing examples this afternoon; and at Prime Minister's Question Time there were two more examples of it from the Leader of the Opposition. He made the same tired old claim that "we"—the Labour party—created and built the national health service. To make such a claim shows either total disingenuousness—I must be careful of my language in this Chamber—or total ignorance. I shall do the right hon. Gentleman a favour by suggesting that his claim is based on ignorance. That is not true of the whole party—some Labour Members know perfectly well who created the health service.
  I shall take a moment or two to remind those who may conveniently have forgotten that the first step in the creation of the national health service, which took some 40 years—we may lament why it took so long—was taken

  781
  by a Liberal, Lloyd George, in 1911. It originated with the National Insurance Act 1911. That legislation created sickness benefit, which became known as the medical benefit scheme, and was the kernel of what became the national health service.
  Who opposed that measure at the time? It was the British Medical Association. We should remind ourselves of that fact each time we hear from the current Jeremiah of the BMA—over the past year or two it has been Dr. Marks. But there has always been a Dr. Marks at the BMA, opposing virtually every change for the better in the national health service.
  In 1918, before the end of the war, the Liberal and Conservative coalition Government launched the Department of Health. It therefore had nothing to do with the Labour party, but was created by the other two parties. I offer that little history lesson because we do not want to hear yet again the nonsense that the Labour party created the national health service.
  In the 1920s, Neville Chamberlain, who subsequently became the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister, called for a national hospital service to fuse voluntary and public hospitals, many of which were of an extremely high standard. It could not make much progress because of the economic conditions between the wars, but, in 1938, all those national hospitals were brought together in the emergency medical service. Who did that? It was not the Labour party but the Conservative Government, so that was a Conservative creation.
  In 1944, a White Paper laid the basis of what we now know as the national health service. The wartime coalition Government, in which the Labour party participated, had a Conservative Health Minister, Henry Willink, who introduced that White Paper. So let us hear no more nonsense about the health service being the Labour party's creation—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) would like to intervene on this history lesson, I am happy to give him that opportunity.
  Mr. John Heppell: The hon. Gentleman's account is a little misleading. It would be better if he told us how the Conservatives voted when the national health service was proposed. If he is telling the truth, he will have to say that they voted against the NHS at every stage in this Chamber.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I am happy to come to that. The hon. Gentleman slightly pre-empted me.
  Everyone greeted the creation of the White Paper except, again, the BMA and the British Medical Journal. The 1944 White Paper was strongly endorsed at the Labour party conference of that year in Blackpool. I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East. No one was arguing against a comprehensive health service, free at the point of delivery. That was not the debate, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was, he is dead wrong. The debate was whether to have a centralised organisation that would become overly bureaucratic or a regionally based organisation. The then Herbert Morrison, who may be familiar to some Labour Members, was very much in favour of the local concept. At the very last minute, Bevan
  782
  persuaded the Labour Government to go for the centralised version—the one opposed by the Conservative party—and, when Morrison told Bevan that it would become a bureaucratic nightmare, Bevan said, "No, we can find ways round it." Sadly, it has taken us many years—we are not yet out of the wood—to find a way to resolve the problems of a centralised health service. We all know that.
  Let me continue with the "Labour party's national health service". Who first introduced prescription charges? There are no prizes for the answer—it was the Labour party. Who, in the 1970s, cut hospital building by 28 per cent. in real terms over four years? It was the Labour party. Who cut nurses' pay in real terms? It was the Labour party. For three years out of four, the pay rises granted to nurses during the period of Labour government were below the rise in the cost of living.
  In 1977–78, there was a real cut in spending of 2.7 per cent. That is the Labour party's reputation and record, and Labour Members and the country should never forget it.
  Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Labour party's approach of seeking to cut the health service goes back a little further? The first financial crisis in the health service was in 1949—a year after it was started—when the then Labour Cabinet said that, as the health service had been in operation for a year, the population should be healthier, so the money going into the health service could be cut.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: My hon. Friend is right. However, in the 10th anniversary debate of the founding of the national health service in 1958,when happily there was a Conservative Administration, the Conservative Minister for Health, Derek Walker-Smith, said that, if we spent just a little more, the nation would get healthier, and we could then spend less. With the wisdom of hindsight, it now seems incredible that our distinguished and intelligent predecessors should ever have thought that.
  We now know the reality, which is what we must all wrestle with. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly said, if only we could wrestle with it in a calm and intelligent way instead of with the party clap-trap that we hear all the time about it being the Labour party's national health service, we might make some progress.
  We all know the factors: the rise in demand; an aging population; improvements in, but increasing costs of, medical techniques; and the rising aspirations, quite rightly, of our people. All those factors add up to a huge challenge, to which we are rising and have risen during the period of Conservative government, and of which we should be extremely proud.
  Just imagine if, in 1979, we had gone to the electorate and said, "Over the next 18 years, we shall increase real-terms spending on the health service year on year by 3 per cent." Who would have believed us? What would the Labour party of the day have said? However, that is what we have done. Had we said that to the BMA, it would have said that all the problems would be solved. Every year, BMA spokesmen say, "Just a little bit more—2 per cent., £2 billion or £10 billion more—and we shall all be OK." Had we offered them a 3 per cent. annual increase in real terms for 18 years, they would have said, "This is utopia; this is heaven." Everyone would have been happy.

  783
  We did not say that, but that is what we have achieved. We now have more than 20,000 more doctors, who are paid 33 per cent. more in real terms. We have 55,000 more nurses, who are paid nearly 70 per cent. more in real terms. That is a great record, and we are proud of it.
  It is not a matter just of employing more doctors and nurses and paying them more, however, but of treating more patients with better, more advanced treatment, and that is what is being achieved. Our constituents know that, although they are still fooled by the Jennifer's ear war which the Labour party persists in waging. Labour Members have learnt nothing since 1992 in that regard. We get the same old tired vacuity.
  If I speak to my constituents, they say that they hear about the terrible problems in the NHS. When I ask them about their personal experience, they say, "My general practitioner is fine." There are GPs of a high standard in my constituency, I am happy to say, and many of them are in budget-holding practices, with all the benefits that that brings. My constituents tell me about Aunty Mabel, who was in Wycombe general hospital a few weeks ago, where the treatment was wonderful. That is what we all hear, time and again.
  Despite all the challenges and the Labour party hypocrisy, we have a great national health service, which is getting better. That is partly a tribute to the healthy economy that we have created, which has enabled us to put in substantial resources, but it is an even greater tribute to the contribution made by all those who work in the NHS, who are daily denigrated by the Labour party. It is time for that to stop.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: A week ago, I was one of those who raised on a point of order the failure of the NHS to meet the extra demand generated by the extremely cold weather over the Christmas and new year period.
  That failure was highlighted for me by the death of a constituent of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). In dire emergency, that constituent had to travel to Hull for treatment, despite the fact that she lived within one mile of a major hospital and within two miles of each of the major hospitals in Leeds. We have become used to Leeds hospitals receiving emergency cases from as far away as Kent, so people in Leeds were surprised to find that our hospitals could not deal with an emergency on their doorstep.
  I raised the point because I thought that the number of incidents and the severity of the shortage of treatment would bring the Secretary of State to the House. Surprisingly, it did not even get him to the studio on the day that the House resumed its business.
  That anecdote and others that we have heard during the debate demonstrate a widespread failing in the health service, but it is important to look beyond anecdotes, because, with so many people being treated by the health service, we cannot expect every case to work out satisfactorily. There will always be anecdotes about people who did not receive the treatment that they felt they should have had.
  We should accept that the reforms introduced into the health service are not all working as smoothly as is claimed by those who introduced them. The public
  784
  demand changes in our approach to the health service, and I am sure that, after the general election, we will respond to those demands.
  The BBC "Panorama" programme just over two weeks ago advanced the thesis that the NHS was being kept afloat in an attempt to see the Government through to the election, that health authorities would be about £150 million in debt by the end of this financial year, and that they were being allowed to overspend by a supposedly fiscally responsible Government in order to create the impression of stability. In effect, that debt will prove to be a deferred cut in NHS spending.
  "Panorama" also reported that, in the past five years, £500 million could have been spent on patient care by health authorities, but that, because of short-term political concerns, that was stopped by the Government through the health authority chairmen they had nominated. That charge needs answering.
  We must discover why there are severe shortages in the health service. The series of anecdotes is not haphazard, but part of a pattern that reveals deficiencies in the service.
  Mr. Forman: I also saw the "Panorama" programme, which I found interesting. Does the hon. Gentleman recall the powerful point it made about the great advantage to patients from the constant provision of new facilities and new hospitals for the health service, as has happened over the past 18 or 20 years or longer? That requires older facilities to be closed down, but it is important that continuity of provision should be maintained.
  Mr. Gunnell: The programme suggested that potential savings had not been made, because of reluctance to close down some facilities that had passed their useful life and that did not have the skilled staff to deal with emergencies for which they were supposed to cater.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the fundamental argument of the programme was that the Government were allowing health authorities to run up large debts in order to keep the health service afloat and maintain the impression of stability until the general election. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with that, but I am sure he will agree that that was the main thesis of the programme. The Government must answer the charge.
  I hope that we would all agree that deficiencies exist in the NHS. As a result of closures, there is undoubtedly a shortage of beds. The British Medical Association, which is clearly not popular with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), says that the reduction in bed numbers is a key reason for the current NHS crisis.
  The Conservatives have cut almost one in four beds since the internal market was introduced. In the North and Yorkshire area, which is my area, there has been an incredible 33 per cent. drop in geriatric beds, a 25 per cent. drop in maternity beds and a 19 per cent. drop in general and acute beds since 1989–90—a 27 per cent. drop overall. We must accept that those figures are accurate and based on a count by the BMA.
  In a recent report on the state of the health service, Leeds general infirmary was highlighted by the BMA for bed closures due to lack of money. The infirmary closed 40 beds because it was the focus of criticism last year about the number of patients on trolleys. I drew attention to two relatives from south Leeds who had died as a result of being left too long on trolleys.

  785
  I accept that an attempt was made to increase the number of intensive care beds. That attempt was partially successful: we have not had quite the same level of crisis this winter, but that has been achieved at the expense of ordinary services. Those 40 beds and others were cut, resulting in the postponement of operations and delays in admission.
  I have been invited to visit a hospital in the next week or two to meet one of the consultants and hear why people must wait so long to see him. The crisis in the NHS is fundamentally a beds crisis. The BMA has warned that, unless the chronic underfunding is tackled, an "emergency-only service" will characterise the NHS in the winter months ahead. Routine surgery, treatment and investigations are already being cancelled or slowed down.
  The Sunday Telegraph, which I would not usually expect to support the Labour party's position, recently reported an accident and emergency official who described the entire hospital service as being
  "stretched beyond its capacity to cope."
  Even the Minister must accept that the health service is under great strain because of a shortage of hospital beds.
  I shall not rehearse the argument about intensive care beds. However, the Secretary of State must examine the position in Leeds and in the North and Yorkshire region, as I do not believe that that region has received the number of paediatric intensive care beds that he specifically promised in his statement. That is why I asked him about the situation in that area.
  The right hon. Gentleman accepted in correspondence with me that the paediatric intensive care unit at Leeds General infirmary is the most highly skilled facility in the region. It is logical to expand the best unit, but the facility at Leeds General infirmary occupies an enclosed space, and it would have to be relocated within the hospital in order to accommodate more than one additional bed.
  We are told that an extra bed has been added to the unit, but the facility is unchanged from when I visited it a year ago. It has space for five beds, and, at a time of real crisis, it can expand to six. That extra bed is shoved in at the expense of the space available to the other beds. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to claim that the unit now has an additional bed, but that bed was always available when needed. The difference is that, previously, it was not counted as an official paediatric intensive care bed, and now it is. I believe that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil his promise to the North and Yorkshire region, and I shall be interested to hear his comments on the matter.
  A shortage of capital funds in the Budget has also caused problems. The Chancellor has revealed a 16 per cent. cut in capital spending, in the expectation that the private finance initiative will make up the difference. The matter was raised previously in debate.
  I think that the Government should come clean about the PFI's achievements in terms of completed projects. When I asked the Secretary of State about it, he said that 43 PFI projects had been signed, which were worth a total of £317 million. When I asked how many of those projects had progressed to building work on a hospital site, he said that 32 such projects had been completed.
  786
  I can only assume that he meant that the signing had been completed in 32 cases and that the projects were ready to go ahead.
  I ask the Minister of State: how many projects are under way? I am interested not only in signed contracts but in bricks and mortar. Can those whom the new facilities are intended to serve see something happening? I do not know of a single instance where construction is under way.
  It is all very well to assume in the Budget that the PFI will make up a shortfall in expenditure—I hope that the private sector ventures will prove successful and that the projects will go ahead, because the NHS needs them—but we must be sure that the projects have progressed beyond the mere signing of pieces of paper. Parliament enacted the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill last year to enable the contracts to be signed, and now I want to know what progress has been made. Is the private sector confident about those contracts?
  Mr. Steinberg: I asked the same question of the Library, and I was told that no PFI project has begun, and not one brick has been laid on any site. Where the Secretary of State gets his 32 starts from is anyone's guess—in fact, I suspect that he was misleading the House.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) is accusing the Secretary of State of misleading the House? If so, I think that he may want to withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Steinberg: I did so inadvertently, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I obviously apologise to the House. However, when information from the Library states that not one brick has been laid on site and the Secretary of State says that 32 projects have been completed, someone somewhere is supplying the wrong information.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the remark?
  Mr. Steinberg: Yes.
  Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the Secretary of State tried to mislead the House. When I asked about completions under the PFI, I think that he thought that I was referring to contracts rather than buildings. Like my hon. Friend, I understand that the projects have yielded no concrete results.
  Mr. Steinberg: According to the Library, the schemes' commencement dates have not been announced.
  Mr. Gunnell: I must move on rapidly.
  Mr. Malone: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I cannot allow the intervention of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) to stand. I shall deal with the matter in some detail in my winding-up speech, but I rise now merely to state that I celebrated the completion

  787
  of a PFI scheme involving the internal refurbishment of part of a London hospital about six to eight months ago. The scheme was valued at some £5 million to £6 million.
  Mr. Steinberg: What a load of cobblers!
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman may mock—I am sure that those at the hospital will note his comments—but I can vouch for the fact that the PFI principle is delivering within the NHS.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for his comments, and I accept that he has seen that project completed. However, I am sure that he does not intend to imply that the Secretary of State meant that 32 such projects have been completed.
  I believe that the shortage of capital in the NHS—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has noted it—is causing real concern within the service. There is also clear dissatisfaction with the purchasing system.
  On Sunday, the Minister of State responded to claims that 20 per cent. of expenditure on purchasing in the NHS is unnecessary. A group claimed that £8 billion of the £40 billion spent on purchasing in the NHS could be saved. The group did not substantiate its case, and I think that we would need more information if we were to pursue that line. However, it is important to examine the way in which money is spent.
  I have written to the Department about the concerns expressed by a company in my constituency—I think that it is the only firm in England that manufactures operating theatre lights—as a result of its experiences of trying to win contracts in the national health service.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Public Service, I am a little concerned about the meeting that we had with the Audit Commission. We talked to the Audit Commission. The freedom it has when it examines local government, whereby it can examine almost anything that local government is doing, is not available to it in the national health service. It is not able to investigate hospitals.
  I hope that the Minister and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider the use of the Audit Commission in the NHS. If the commission were not restricted in what it can do in individual hospitals and trusts, we might get some useful information from it. Certainly, if purchasing does not, as was alleged, ensure value for money, I would expect the Audit Commission to be able to make a positive contribution. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made a point about which we feel very strongly: if so little information is held centrally, as the Department of Health is willing to reveal to us in answers to parliamentary questions, it is no wonder that some of the decisions that are taken are not the best decisions for the service. I am amazed at the number of times we are simply told that the information is not held centrally, even when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked how many hospital closures there had been.
  Let me give examples of matters that are important for an understanding of the workings of the health service. I have been looking at the Mental Health Act 1983 and the
  788
  way in which electro-convulsive therapy treatments are given—I have a constituent who is concerned about this—and particularly the way in which they are often given without specific consent. I attempted to find out, through the Department of Health, the extent to which such treatments take place, but was told that the information was not held centrally.
  I tried to find out what information the Department collected centrally to determine the performance of the health service in relation to its "Health of the Nation" targets on strokes. It told me that, although it holds a certain amount of information concerning mortality, it was not able to tell me much about the people who experienced strokes and went into hospital, and what treatment was effective in preserving them, perhaps for a later stroke but perhaps for very much longer than that.
  If that information is not held centrally, what is? How do Ministers get the information they need to make policy decisions? The health service is now so fragmented that it must be difficult even for Ministers if the Department of Health is not able to give factual data about the state of the nation's health—and, indeed, how far we have progressed towards meeting the "Health of the Nation" targets.
  After the general election, a change will come about that will be extremely helpful to the service. In the first instance, in office will be people who always use and rely on the service. That is very important. It makes a difference. The attitude of someone who is able to contract out of the health service and pay for his or her private health care is very different.
  I lived in the United States for eight years, where I had to pay for my own health care. The health care that I received there was very good, but that was because I was able to pay for it. We do not want different standards of care according to people's ability to pay. There will be a positive effect from the presence in office of people who recognise that, in times of emergency, they have only the health service on which to rely.
  We have within the health service an enormously committed work force. The Government say that we run down those who work in the health service, but that is not true. We have very strong praise for those who work in it. Often, the conditions under which they work do not help their morale. I am thinking, for example, of those who work on temporary contracts. A little while ago, my wife had an operation in the Huddersfield royal infirmary. The treatment that she received was extremely good. I have nothing but praise for those who carried out the service.
  Some of the staff on temporary contracts explained their position. They did not know whether, in the next financial year, they would have a contract. The morale of people who work in the health service is affected by such matters. If they cannot live their normal lives because they are uncertain whether they will have a permanent job, that makes it more difficult for them to show commitment to the service. In this instance, however, I found that the people concerned showed extremely good care, and I saw their commitment to the service.
  Under a Labour Administration, there would be ways of working to correct the low morale in the service. There would be much greater participation. On local commissioning, we are concerned that more people take part in decision making. I believe that real savings can be

  789
  made by reducing bureaucracy. One area where a Labour Government could make savings is the enormous bureaucracy within the service on billing those who receive treatment outside their areas. It is possible to make the savings that we have spoken about without detriment to the service.
  We should make use of the services of the Audit Commission to ensure that purchasing is carried out on a value-for-money basis. The Minister was accused on Sunday, by the person with whom he was debating, of wanting to remove from the NHS the very people who are making good decisions. It is important that we have advice, so that any changes we make in the service do not affect patient care.
  Tonight's debate has highlighted deficiencies in the service. The Government are unusually complacent about the service for which they are responsible. It has proved to be less than safe in their hands, and I feel confident that the election of a Labour Government will be welcomed throughout the health service. The Government will have to explain why, in every survey, the public believe firmly that the health service will be safer in Labour's hands. It is because they know that it is a service on which we ourselves will rely in emergencies. We believe that the health service is essential for the health and well-being of the nation.
  6.58 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I leave the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) to dream on.
  Undoubtedly, all hon. Members read the Order Paper each day. I am sure that they do so devotedly and thoroughly from start to finish. I am beginning to be glad that the public do not follow our example. If they did and read the motion that is before us, thousands of people would be astonished. We read of the "grave situation" of the national health service, of "anxiety," "alarm" and "intolerable pressure". We are told that many people are
  "without the access to health care they need".
  What tommy-rot.
  I can say without question that anyone who has been in hospital, or been to their doctor, and experienced the level of care that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) described, would not recognise the terms of the motion. The motion is so far from reality that there is virtually no connection between what it states and the reality of the health service.
  It is not an infrequent occurrence for me to receive letters from constituents or to receive visits at my surgery. People write or visit to say, "I want to let you know that I have been in hospital"—it might have been one of a number of hospitals—"and I had the most wonderful care. The most wonderful nurses and doctors looked after me. The treatment I had, the drugs I received and the operation performed were magnificent." Yet those who have not had the misfortune to be ill, or the good fortune to be looked after in an NHS hospital, must think that our hospitals are appalling, especially if they read the rubbish contained in the Opposition motion.
  It is true that the press, especially local newspapers, seem to glory in presenting bad news. They will rejoice at someone being left on a trolley. They will not mention,
  790
  of course, how many patients the same hospital is treating on any given day when someone is in a corridor on a trolley. Newspaper reports portray a service that has no connection with the real service.
  Intensive care units were mentioned at Question Time, including Prime Minister's Question Time, and in this debate. If we had so many extra intensive care units available that every patient who suddenly had a need for such a bed could immediately be placed in a unit within 20 minutes of his or her home, we would need a huge increase in the money that is available to spend. If that provision were made available, thousands of intensive beds would be left empty day after day. I can imagine the fuss that would be generated by the newspapers, let alone Her Majesty's Opposition, about the waste involved in all those beds remaining empty in the absence of emergencies, accidents, children having serious heart conditions or whatever. The expense of having an intensive care unit available for everyone who might—not would—have a need for one, having fallen under a bus or out of a window, would be amazing to contemplate.
  The same point can be made about ordinary hospital beds. Patients on trolleys in corridors are not there for fun. They are there because every bed in the hospital is full. We never hear, however, about the numbers of patients who are being treated in hospitals. We know—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) laughing. God forbid that he should have any responsibility for providing the country with health care as he clearly knows little about it. We cannot possibly keep empty beds available just in case we are faced with a 'flu epidemic. It is clear that Labour Members are living in a dream world. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Doncaster, North laughs and refuses to face the facts. He will hear a few more from me, whether he likes it or not.
  I have attended health debates in the House for many years. Whenever Conservative Governments have initiated reforms or improvements, or introduced new ideas, Labour has voted against them. If we are realistic, we must accept that reforms have to be made. We all know—perhaps the hon. Member for Doncaster, North does not, but he would be the only Member in that position—that if we are to give everyone every care that he or she needs at any particular time, we shall have to make more money available. I happen to believe that voters agree with that assertion. I recognise, of course, that they want a good health service and are happy to see that their taxes are spent to provide one.
  Many of the reforms that we have introduced, against which Opposition Members voted, were designed to ensure that all moneys spent within the health service were spent wisely. At one time we had no idea how much it cost to keep someone in a hospital bed overnight. We did not have a clue. We also did not know how much it cost to perform operations, ranging from those to remove varicose veins to heart transplants and complicated liver surgery, for example.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: No, the hon. Gentleman must listen for a short while.

  791
  We Conservatives ensured that inquiries were made and careful costings undertaken. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: Let me finish my sentence. When I have done so, he can have his go.
  I remember—perhaps my memory is better than the hon. Gentleman's on these matters—that we initiated schemes to enable us to ascertain costs. The Labour Opposition voted against them.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is making much of the supposed fact that we now know the cost of operations. I specifically asked the Secretary of State in a written question in December 1996 to supply the average cost in England of a hip replacement operation. Why, then, did I receive the answer that he did not know?
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman cannot deny the truth of what I have said. It may not be possible in every instance to state the cost of a hip replacement operation, but we Conservatives initiated schemes—if the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, he would have voted against them—to try to determine costs. I am talking about the principle of needing to know what hospital stays and operations cost. We now know a great deal more—I accept that we do not know everything—about costs. Much time, care and work were expended on finding answers to questions of costs.
  Why was that? We had the opportunity for the first time to ask, "Why is it that this hospital can run its operation theatre at a cost of only £X per hour while another hospital is running its theatre three times more expensively?" We were able to say, "This hospital is able to accommodate a patient overnight at a quarter of the cost incurred by the hospital along the road. Why is that?" On that basis, each hospital and each hospital chief executive could examine why one hospital was cheaper than another.
  It is no good the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) thinking that what I have described did not happen. He lives in cloud cuckoo land most of the time, but he must understand that without a knowledge of costs, which we most certainly have and have used, we would not be able to make comparisons and introduce savings.
  A great deal of money was saved once we could ask cost questions. We found that many areas of hospital care—for example, cleaning, the provision of food and laundering—would be much more cheaply provided on a privatised basis. Labour voted against such schemes. It is hilarious now to hear what Labour is saying about privatisation. Never in 100 million years would it have introduced privatisation. We said, however, that it would be sensible to adopt schemes that would enable us to have more money, and they have provided that. Private firms were employed if they could do those jobs better.
  I remember Labour Members jeering at us and accusing us of thinking that it is all a matter of money. You think that it is not at all a matter of money—I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not referring to you. Her Majesty's Opposition may think that money does not come into it, but doctors and nurses have to be paid, new
  792
  hospitals are being built and they cost money; adaptations to modern methods of treating people must be made and they are expensive.
  Labour Members accuse us of trying to save money, every penny of which we have spent on the treatment of patients—our reforms gave us much more money to do that. None of that would have happened were it not for the Conservative party's reforms, all of which the Labour party voted against. Since they were introduced in 1991, our reforms have enabled no fewer than 3,500 more people per day to be treated. What a lot of pain that must alleviate. What a lot of comfort that must give to relatives who are concerned about their sons or daughters.
  Her Majesty's Opposition seem to set themselves up as the friend of the health service. If that is so, it is the first time ever.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: The Tory Government voted against it.
  Dame Jill Knight: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, he would know a little more than he does about the history of the health service.
  The fact of the matter is that more money will be necessary. Although we have made a clear pledge to provide more money, the Labour party has not. When the general election campaign comes—it cannot be far away—people will not believe a word that Labour Members say. The Labour party refuses to promise to spend any more money; it says that it may spend more money but that it will not increase tax. If it will not increase tax, where is the money to come from? Will national insurance contributions or excise duties be increased? Will Labour extend VAT? No. Apparently it will be possible to make much more money available to the health service merely by ending bureaucracy.
  I should like to read a quick snip from The Independent of 28 November 1996:
  "The big question Mr Smith has to address is resources. It is no good Labour relying on its present formula of sacking managers to create £100 million for the NHS to recycle. The managers have gone. The savings have been made. He should fight Gordon Brown the shadow chancellor for the right, at the very least, to match the Tory cash promise for next year".
  No such matching promise has been made. Furthermore, I could not help noticing what a Labour Member said in The Journal on 4 December 1996:
  "Labour will match any spending pledges made by the Conservatives".
  That was on 4 December, but I am still waiting for Labour to match the spending pledges made by the Conservatives. There is more. He said:
  "we will also cut £100 million from the NHS bureaucracy bill and use it to treat … 100,000 patients".
  His arithmetic is a little dodgy. Labour has made no spending pledges, and it is perfectly obvious that the electorate will not be told whether there will be more spending and where the money will come from.
  The Opposition are always attacking health service managers, but managers are necessary: it would be extraordinary if a hospital could be run without a manager. I am sick and tired of hearing Labour Members attack managers, who to my mind do a very good job.

  793
  When we consider the health service in other countries, even those of our European partners, we begin to see how extremely fortunate we are in this country with our excellent health service. In parts of Europe, people have to have their food, linen and blankets brought to them in hospital, and they do not get even the most modest and insignificant nursing care unless they pay for it directly.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is called privatisation.
  Dame Jill Knight: No, in hospitals run by countries in the European Union.
  It is improper for the Labour party to keep attacking the health service and suggesting, quite wrongly, that people are getting a bad health service. The people of this country are not fools: they know perfectly well what the service is like, because they receive health care and they know that it is beyond compare. Her Majesty's Opposition should be ashamed of themselves.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: In opening the debate, the Secretary of State for Health tried to lay the foundations of his argument for the coming general election. He treated us to the view that, when the election is called, the people will side with the Conservative party. I do not believe that, but if he is so sure of his ground, he should go to 10 Downing street and persuade the Prime Minister to call the election and let the people judge for themselves to whom they want to entrust the health service.
  It is worth remembering that the health service is in its 49th year. I sincerely believe that it is facing a crisis: I say it no more strongly than that, because I do not want to be accused of scaremongering or shroud waving.
  It is important to put the record straight. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) is not present, because he treated us to a view of history with which I do not concur. He claimed that, between 1940 and 1945, the national Government endorsed the findings of the Beveridge report. The Beveridge report was rejected by the national Government. The only political party that took forward the principles of the Beveridge report was the Labour party. Those principles were rejected by the Liberal party and the Conservative party. In 1946, when the vote for the creation of the health service took place, that rejection was plain for all to see, because the Conservative party voted against it.
  Conservative Members are being disingenuous when they say that they supported the creation of the health service and the concepts in the Beveridge report. The Beveridge report was so controversial that it was disowned by almost everyone, including his own party. The Labour party can be rightly proud of the fact that it used the report as a blueprint for the national health service under the auspices of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Hendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hall: No, I shall not give way.
  794
  If the Conservative party wants to stick to its claim that the health service is safe in its hands and that it will care for those in need, we should consider how it is dealing with the current crisis in intensive care across the whole country. That is a powerful example of the Government's complacency and shows how they are disintegrating. Last week, the Secretary of State for Health refused to come to the House to answer questions on the crisis in intensive care provision.
  If we need confirmation of that complacency, we need only consider the way in which the Prime Minister dealt with the issue at Question Time this afternoon, and the way in which the Secretary of State dealt with it in his opening speech. The Secretary of State refused to recognise that there was any problem with the provision of intensive care, but there are enough examples to prove him wrong. The right hon. Gentleman's strategic intellectual non-intervention does him no credit—although I had some regard for him when, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he spoke from the Dispatch Box in a different vein, adopting a far more considered approach.
  The Secretary of State should not be surprised that there is a crisis in the health service, because on his desk is a report to Alan Langlands, chief executive of the national health service executive, on emergency care in the north-west region. The report mentions a separate report on intensive care. The report on the north-west region has been published, and was presented to Alan Langlands in September 1996.
  I wanted to use the report to strengthen my arguments about the intensive care problems in my town of Warrington, but the north-west regional office refused to give me a copy, saying that it had not been published and was only for internal use. I do not know what the office has to hide, but the document has been published, and should be available to hon. Members. I do not understand why the Department of Health, through its regional office, wants to suppress it; I can conclude only that the information contained in it would be damaging to the Government if quoted in the debate, and would underline my view that Warrington is experiencing a crisis in internal intensive care provision.
  To strengthen my argument, therefore, I shall have to refer to the report of which I have a copy, which concerns emergency care in the north-west region. I shall read just one paragraph from the introduction, which is very powerful. It states:
  "Over recent years there has been a steady increasing pressure placed on secondary care services to handle emergency admissions over the winter period. The pressure became so intense at times during 1995/96 that the system was in danger of collapsing."
  No wonder the Department did not want me to see the report on intensive care in the north-west, as submitted to the chief executive of the health service.
  The report confirmed that there had been dramatic bed losses in my region. We know from Government answers placed in the Library that, since 1989–90, 10,510 beds have been lost in the north-west; furthermore, 1,238 acute beds have been lost since then. It also confirmed that there was a crisis in emergency care provision, and predicted peak demand for such provision in November and December last year, adding that no extra resources would be available to meet that demand. Although the report goes some way to admitting that there is a demand and

  795
  talks of managing resources in the health service to meet that demand, it does not go the extra yard in terms of intensive care provision.
  The borough of Warrington is served by Warrington's district general hospital. Warrington's population is 200,000 and growing, but the hospital deals with trauma admissions from a wider population in Halton, in the borough of Widnes and Runcorn, and from Leigh. That catchment area contains 350,000 people.
  Warrington hospital has three intensive care beds and one high-dependency bed. Last year, the occupancy rate for those beds was 98.9 per cent. If we use the NHS guidelines on the provision of intensive care beds, according to the rule of thumb there should be 2.2 beds per 100,000 people. If that were applied in Warrington, we would have eight intensive care beds, but at best we have only four. North Cheshire health authority funds only three, however; the hospital provides the money for the other one.
  The existence of a crisis is underlined by the fact that, in 1996, there were 142 intensive care admissions and 216 high-dependency admissions. The other side of the coin is the refusal of 83 admissions—but that is not the whole picture. Once doctors know that the intensive care unit is full, they do not even apply for places for their patients. There were 18 transfers from the intensive care unit—out of Warrington—but that, too, does not give the true picture, because transfers from other wards or from the accident and emergency unit are not included. Both the refusal rate and the transfer rate should be higher.
  The postponement of elective surgery and the cancellation of operations owing to the lack of beds is also a problem in Warrington hospital. Warrington is developing a very good reputation for treatment of the three major cancers, but when operations are cancelled, patients who are desperate for surgery must go through the trauma of having their appointments cancelled and their treatment delayed—although, as we all know, the earlier patients are treated for cancer, the better are their prospects of recovery. The chief executive of the hospital tells me that it is very difficult to quantify the number of patients who are not scheduled for surgery because of the lack of beds.
  It is clear that there is not enough intensive care provision in that hospital, as North Cheshire health authority has recognised. Warrington is a net exporter of intensive care, which means that more patients go out of Warrington for treatment than come in from outside. The consequences have been fatal for at least one of my constituents, and probably more. I refer to the tragic case of Mr. Pitcher, who was admitted to Warrington hospital in September for routine bowel surgery. During post-operative care, he suffered a heart attack and needed an intensive care bed, but no bed was available at the hospital. He was taken by ambulance to Fazakerley hospital, 30 miles away. He died.
  At the inquest a couple of weeks ago, the coroner was so concerned about the lack of intensive care at Warrington that, in giving his verdict of death by misadventure, he said that he would refer the case to the Secretary of State for Health. The consultant who had dealt with Mr. Pitcher said that taking him to Fazakerley hospital in an ambulance had not been the treatment that he had deserved, and I am certain that the lack of an intensive care bed in Warrington led directly to his untimely death.
  796
  Another case involved a lady who lived in the village of Barnton in mid-Cheshire, just outside my constituency. She had a severe respiratory problem. The doctor telephoned all the hospitals in the area looking for an intensive care bed—Countess of Chester hospital, Warrington hospital, Halton general hospital and others—but no bed was available in the north-west. The lady was transferred by ambulance to Rhyl, but was dead on arrival. I am certain that, if an intensive care bed had been available anywhere in Cheshire, she would be alive today.
  In another tragic case, a gentleman called Mr. Wilson was found unconscious in the grounds of Winwick hospital, a mental hospital in north Warrington. He was taken to Warrington's accident and emergency unit, but there was no place for him in intensive care. He was transferred to Trafford general hospital. He then contracted pneumonia, and has been in a coma for nine weeks. I cannot say whether he will regain consciousness, but one thing is certain: the journey from Warrington to Trafford did not do him any good. He is now taking up a bed at Trafford, and preventing others from obtaining the intensive care that they need.
  My final example concerns a lady recovering from surgery at Warrington hospital. Her case worsened and she needed intensive care, but, as no bed was available, she had to be taken across the Pennines in an ambulance to Leeds, 60 miles away. There have been problems with intensive care provision in Leeds as well.
  Those are just four examples of transfers of people who could not be given the treatment that they should expect from hospitals in their areas. It is clear that intensive care provision in Warrington is inadequate to meet local demand. I was encouraged by the Secretary of State's announcement of challenge funding of £4 million to provide 37 intensive care beds and 53 high-dependency beds. The total number is 90 and not the 100 that the Secretary of State claimed in the debate. However, in his case, a 10 per cent. inaccuracy can be forgiven.
  North Cheshire health authority put in a bid on behalf of Warrington hospital for an extra high-dependency bed. The Secretary of State said that such beds would be provided where the need was greatest and Warrington had a demonstrable need. However, on 27 December he announced the bad news that Warrington had not been given the extra bed that it required to bring it even halfway towards the provision that we should expect for it.
  North Cheshire health authority, the regional authority and the hospital have decided to put together a package to provide one intensive care bed from 1 April. The health authority will provide £100,000, the regional authority will try to find the same amount and the hospital has been asked to find £50,000 for the provision of that bed. It is a step in the right direction, but it is rather like putting a finger in a dyke because, for straightforward reasons, in six months there will be an increase in demand in Warrington that will not be met.
  Warrington has been underfunded for as long as I can remember. It is a growing and prosperous new town in north Cheshire whose population has trebled in the past 25 years. It is surrounded by a motorway network consisting of the M6, the M56 and the M62. Because of geographical features, the trauma admissions to Warrington hospital are the highest in the region.

  797
  In the early 1980s, Warrington's two hospitals were merged and, in its so-called wisdom, the health authority decided to use £1 million of revenue to fund part of the capital building at the hospital. That revenue has never been repaid and, on today's figures alone, that is costing the hospital £4 million. Every month the hospital is on red alert. As the Minister will know, that means that its finances are at the absolute limit. It is in danger of overspending every month and its financial position is reported to the regional arm of the executive, yet it has been asked to provide £50,000 towards the provision of intensive care.
  The 1997–98 budget for North Cheshire health authority, which is a purchaser, showed the lowest increase in the region and Government constraints mean that any attempts to address the inadequacy of provision in Warrington hospital are resisted.
  I am certain that there is a crisis in the health service. I have been told, although I do not know whether it is true, that three weeks ago there was not a spare intensive care bed in the whole of England. If there had been any more admissions for intensive care, the nearest suitable bed would have been in Scotland. Warrington hospital is an example of the crisis in intensive care. Does the Minister of State recognise, even at this late stage, that there is a crisis? If he does, what does he intend to do about it? Does he appreciate the problems that I have outlined in Warrington? If so, what does he intend to do about them? What will he tell me in his winding-up speech so that I can return to my constituents and say that the Secretary of State has taken heed of the problem and is prepared to take steps to ensure that they receive the health service that they deserve?
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: The House will agree that it is always a tragedy when patients die or become more ill than need be because of misfortune, failures in clinical judgment or organisational failures in the health service. Every hon. Member and every fair-minded person deplores such eventualities, but that is not to say that in a service as large and varied and, if I may say so, as successful as the national health service, it is correct to approach such a serious debate by lacing speeches, whether in the House or outside, with endless repetitions of the six letter word "crisis". If I had £1 or even lop for every time I have heard Opposition Members or distinguished adornments of the media use that word in relation to the health service, I would be fairly well off. Such speeches are the wrong approach.
  I agree with the wise words of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), which I hope the House has noted. He said explicitly that it is not sensible for individual anecdotes on this matter to do more than inform policy. Those were not his exact words but my rendering of what he said. Such anecdotes should certainly not determine policy and still less should newspaper headlines be taken as a guide either to the real situation or to what should be done.
  I was appalled recently, and not for the first time by such an example, when I saw that the sub-editor of one of my local papers had chosen the headline "Nightmare in Casualty". That is a distortion of the truth, and I say
  798
  that with some authority, because I keep in close touch with the accident and emergency department of St. Helier hospital in my constituency. It has been mentioned several times in the debate and is a successful and admirable hospital whose staff work hard and show considerable devotion towards their professional tasks.
  I agreed with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that we should lower the temperature of these debates, at least in relation to the facts and to what we all know the situation to be, and should seriously and quietly consider the best way forward to improve and expand the service in a way that the taxpayers can afford. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said, the debate is not helped by being initiated by a party that is long on fine words. There are 17 lines in the Labour motion, but as my hon. Friend said, only the final one and a half lines contain anything prescriptive, and even then there are no figures or precise recommendations.
  I do not know how the electorate can sensibly judge Labour policy on the health service when Opposition Members refuse to commit themselves to what is manifestly necessary in the light of their own speeches—a real increase in expenditure year on year. As many of my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have said, we adhere to that commitment year after year. As far as I know, Labour does not. All that Labour seems to offer is the marginal redirection of money that is now spent on 22,000 administrators towards the employment of 50,000 more nurses. Obviously, such a switch would be welcome if it were the solution to the problem, but it is little more than a token gesture in the hope that this part of the public service will be transformed by such a marginal move. That is plainly not the case and such an attempt at policy is not commensurate with the scale of the challenges that face the national health service.
  It is not doing the House and the country much of a service to present a motion that is long on piety and sanctimony but decidedly short on content. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), was not much better in that regard. He did not give way to me when I sought to ask him a pertinent question about locality commissioning. Perhaps he would like to answer my question now: on what evidence does he base his view that, if a future Government moved towards what he described as locality commissioning, that would be any less bureaucratic or costly in terms of overheads than the present structure?
  Mr. Chris Smith: The answer is simple. It would do away with a layer of bureaucracy at single practice level. It would do away with a purchasing function at health authority level and it would do away with a substantial amount of invoicing work done at hospital level. Therefore, as a result of our proposals, there would be substantial savings in bureaucratic procedures.
  Mr. Forman: That is a better attempt than the hon. Gentleman made in his opening speech. There is a reference in the Labour motion to greater local representation in decision making, and I assume that would mean a greater role for local authorities in some of the decisions. It seems that we are likely to get a range of new quangos and committees which will add to the

  799
  bureaucratic overheads. It remains to be seen whether the hon. Gentleman will get a chance to put his nostrums into practice.
  I am critical not of the Liberal Democrat spokesman in today's debate, but of the Liberal Democrat opponent in my constituency. He does not seem to observe the admonition of his colleagues to deal fairly and squarely with the facts. I am sorry to say that it is an all-too-familiar example of people trading in scares, shroud waving and imaginary problems, which turn out not to exist. For example, in a publication calling itself "The Carshalton and Wallington Chronicle", there is an article headed "NHS Cash Crisis: Huge hardship for patients at St. Helier". The words used in the article are categorically wrong, as I know because I took the trouble to check this morning. The Liberal Democrat candidate says:
  "St. Helier hospital is facing a winter crisis due to a lack of money. Twelve beds at St. Helier hospital are standing idle, in a locked ward, because the hospital has over-performed, and recently the Accident and Emergency unit had to close temporarily, due to a lack of resources."
  In fact, no beds are standing idle in a locked ward. A decision was taken on 3 January to open—or more correctly to reopen—ward A4 at the hospital. The extra facilities, coupled with the 35 extra beds that have been brought into commission and to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, have greatly alleviated the situation at St. Helier. I base that information not just on my contacts with the management, with whom I took the trouble to check this morning, but on my visit to the accident and emergency unit just last week.
  I wish that people involved in politics, in all parties, would try to cling to the truth and observe accuracy, because it does no favours for our constituents or the worried families and friends of patients if such shroud waving continues.
  It is significant that the Conservative party is the only party in the House that is committed to more public expenditure on the health service in real terms. The Liberal Democrat commitment involves shuffling money around from one heading to another. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I intervened on his speech, but I am not convinced that he has squared the line with the leader of his party, who frequently says that the only commitment that his party has to raising taxation is a penny extra on income tax if that were necessary to improve the education service. I remain to be convinced on that.
  It is interesting that the pledge made by Ministers and Government spokesmen demonstrates our continuing commitment to the health service. Equally, we must recognise that, as a country, we are not likely to be able to meet all the demands for NHS health care in all its forms without some delays from time to time from those with non-urgent and non-life-threatening conditions. It is much better to talk about the reality than to lead people to believe that everything is possible, when clearly it is not.
  When I was thinking about this aspect of my argument earlier today, I recalled the fact that many people, myself included, have often believed that all the problems in the health service could perhaps be solved if Ministers allocated about a 3 per cent. increase each year in real
  800
  terms to health service expenditure. That argument has been made from time to time by representatives of the British Medical Association, community health councils and others.
  When I looked more closely—I checked the figures with the Library this morning—I found, to my surprise, that the NHS budget for England has been increased by 3 per cent. in real terms each year over the entire period of this Government. If a 3 per cent. compound increase had been put into effect for England alone, the figure for 1996–97 would have been about £31.5 billion. I assumed that I would discover the true figure to be less than that. Much to my surprise and pleasure, I discovered that the actual figure for England for the same year and on the same basis was about £33 billion. I had underestimated rather than overestimated the Government's financial commitment to the health service. I want to place that on record, because it shows that I am no mere party hack. I underestimated the achievements of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I commend them on their ability to persuade the Treasury to release money for these desirable purposes.
  The figures imply that our record of putting taxpayers' money into this premium service, which all our constituents value, is exemplary. In spite of that, even at the level of finances that we are able to allocate, problems can and do arise. I want to mention one or two problems of which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take account in his winding-up speech.
  There are realities that the House should recognise and about which it should be a little humble. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, we have a health service of enviable quality and quantity by European or global standards. It is no good for people to talk it down. At St. Helier hospital in my constituency, we find reason to welcome the extra resources from which it will benefit in 1997–98, as a result of not only effective and timely lobbying by me and many of my hon. Friends but the way in which the Secretary of State listened to our arguments and responded clearly and positively to them.
  I am delighted that St. Helier will benefit from the district health authority's decision to concentrate its extra resources for elective activity on local hospitals and not go to providers further afield. It will secure relief from the health authority's decision to fund its share of unavoidable costs and service changes in my area. There is no doubt that that will be a great help to the hospital. It is equally reassuring that many of the specialties that were previously thought to be at risk will now become priorities for the extra resources that have been made available following the Secretary of State's decision. Those specialties include arterial surgery, ophthalmology, which essentially means cataract operations, major orthopaedic interventions such as hip replacements, oral surgery and orthodontics. All that is good news and is in stark contrast to dire predictions by the Conservative party's political opponents which are fanned by an excessively sensational media.
  In all fairness, I must say that, in spite of those achievements and the considerable relief that they bring to my constituents, there are still some underlying problems which must be mentioned because they are continuing and are independent of whoever happens to be politically responsible for the health service at any time. I shall give three headline examples.

  801
  Having followed these issues closely for a number of years, I believe that in Greater London the planned reduction in hospital capacity and in-patient beds may have been taken too far in light of the Tomlinson report; I say that with some experience, as I was a Minister at the Department for Education when Tomlinson was advising on that. I therefore welcomed the ability of St. Helier hospital to reopen ward A4 on 3 January, largely for haematology and short-stay medical investigations.
  We need to revisit the question of the number of beds in the Greater London area. The evidence shows that our area has been expected to remove beds from its capacity levels slightly faster than is prudent or equates with what has had to happen in areas outside London.
  The Government, my hon. Friends and local authorities together—it has to be a matter of partnership—need to provide more capacity to care for the chronically sick and elderly patients who come into their care. When I visited St. Helier hospital last week, I could not help but notice that a significant number of the patients brought in through accident and emergency were aged over 75, over 85 or, in some cases, as they explained to me, over 90.
  Obviously, health does not go in a linear progression with age. Some people seem young and are sprightly and very healthy at a remarkably old age; others deteriorate more quickly. The fact is, however, that old people need special medical attention. Obviously, if they can be supported and cared for in their own homes, so much the better; that is all well and good. There will be instances, however, as I am sure you would say you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you could speak from the Chair, when caring for people in their own homes is not the most appropriate approach.
  We must be prepared gradually and responsibly to increase the facilities in cottage hospitals, such as the Carshalton War Memorial hospital in my constituency, and in nursing homes—whether in the public or the private sector—and sheltered accommodation so that our elderly can complete their lives in safety, dignity and, if possible, good health.
  The added benefit of making such a shift in emphasis would be to release some medical and surgical beds in district general hospitals that are occupied by elderly patients who cannot be discharged because there is nowhere appropriate for them to go at the time such a decision has to be made.
  My final example was again brought home to me on my latest visit to the accident and emergency department at St. Helier. It is that the goals of the patients charter, to which we all want the Government to subscribe, will be achieved in full only if we all understand the facts of life in our hospitals today. On my most recent visit, it was brought home to me that major trauma accounts for a small percentage of the total admissions through an accident and emergency department; typically, it is somewhat less than 10 per cent. The vast majority of patients admitted—this connects with something that I said a few moments ago—arrive with medical conditions, some of which may be acute but many of which are chronic and require medical beds, care and treatment in other parts of the hospital. We need to recognise that, because it is the lesson that the professionals instilled in me when I listened to them.
  802
  Better results could be achieved with a greater role for primary care and a more proactive role for general practitioners' surgeries, whether fundholders or not, and for health centres, as long as they perform their contractual obligations to provide 24-hour cover for their patients, seven days a week. I am sorry to say that, too often, there are examples of where reliance is only on locums, who are sometimes hard to contact, or of GPs slipping into the easy habit of referring patients to the local accident and emergency department when they should deal with the problems themselves at first hand.
  With those three cautionary observations about areas in which further improvements could still be made, my conclusion is that we all have a part to play in improving the national health service. The NHS is something of which we can be proud. Clinical personnel can do so by using their wonderful professional skills to maximum effect. The much maligned bureaucrats can do so by managing what is, by any standard, a vast undertaking—the largest single employer in this country. We politicians and others who take a close interest in these matters, including pressure groups and the media, can best make our contribution by conducting a mature and measured debate, by resisting the temptation to exaggerate and, above all, by making sure that we do not indulge in shroud waving.
  7.54 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who gave us some cautionary warnings. I was interested in his reference to the Tomlinson report, for it reminded us in this computer age of the expression, gigo—garbage in, garbage out. Tomlinson admitted later that not all the figures had been given to him correctly. When we deal with statistics, it is important that we get them right or we can come up with the wrong conclusion. I also share the hon. Gentleman's view about a positive approach to the health service.
  I took part in the debate on the 40th anniversary of the health service. On that occasion, I sensed some depression and commented that the only encouraging thing was, as the old saying goes, life begins at 40. Nine years on, we are still going on and there have been tremendous changes for the good in the health service.
  Some of us remember bed blocking—beds were not occupied because the surgeon in charge did not want anyone else to use them so that he could put his patients in them in due course. Other things went on. We pay tribute to the improvements.
  One of the great problems is that of growing expectations, whether of those who want to terminate life, those who want children through infertility treatment, or those who, at 80-odd years of age, want a hip replacement. Other people aged 40, who are having their hip replacements delayed because they are assessed as being too young for the operation, are no longer economically viable.
  Expectations have changed and we have to face up to that. It is also true to say that how we view things depends on who is doing the recording. I was interested in the references in the gospels to the woman who had haemorrhaged for some 12 years. Doctor Luke, the "beloved physician", reports that she had spent all her
  "living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any".

  803
  Mark, who as a layman is a little more stark in his approach, said that she had
  "suffered many things of many physicians and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse".
  It all depends on the position of the person who is doing the reporting.
  Often, however, the key is finance. I am sorry for those who were beginning to practise in the health service at the time, as the Government and practitioners did not listen to the advice of Enoch Powell—then my colleague, the right hon. Member for South Down—when he reminded them that he who paid the piper called the tune. Sooner or later, people discovered that, if the money was not forthcoming, there were difficulties. In the light of the motion and the statement by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is to be no more spending or direct taxation, where will the money to meet the demands of our people's growing expectations come from?
  The health boards in Northern Ireland and the health authorities in England and Wales depend largely on allocations from the Department of Health and, ultimately, on the Treasury, for the moneys to be expended. I would have liked to have been able to say that the recent injection of cash to make up deficiencies in capital expenditure and running expenditure allocated to England and Wales included money for Northern Ireland, but it did not.
  The pressure is on to reduce expenditure in the health service. Some years ago, expenditure in Northern Ireland was 25 per cent. per capita above that in England and Wales. Now, we are behind both Scotland and Wales. Recently, the gap between us and England has narrowed to 11 per cent. No consideration is given to the different health needs of a people with a different spread of population. We do not have the large conurbations that make it easier to provide certain specialist services.
  The Government pledged a year on year increase in Great Britain, but in Northern Ireland we have a year on year decrease of 3 per cent. Thankfully, we managed to convince the Minister that, as we have been squeezed for a long time, 3 per cent. up-front cuts would not be workable this year, and the figure was reduced to 1.5 per cent. However, the cuts remain a factor.
  The people of Northern Ireland are not entirely happy with certain strictures that Ministers have been making. There is a parallel with those who are quick to criticise doctors who refuse to treat patients because they smoke or engage in behaviour that causes or aggravates their illness. The doctors say that they will not waste their time and money if the behaviour continues. This year, Ministers have lectured us to the effect that, because of the resurgence of terrorism, there will be cuts in funding for the health service. The Government are apparently prepared to punish the people of Northern Ireland because of the failure of successive Governments to deal with terrorism and with republican activists who seek to destroy the Province.
  We must be realistic. Particular problems arise. The division between boards and trusts, purchasers and providers, has been helpful in some ways, but in others it has added problems. The boards pay for emergencies and the GP fundholders purchase elective surgery. The bodies are served by humans and, as with humans everywhere, there are differences of attitude. Some seek to balance the
  804
  budget—some of us live in a city where we remember the mother in the home having envelopes for groceries, rent, fuel and insurance—but others are spendthrifts.
  Some boards and some GP fundholders have been watching carefully how they purchase and how they provide services through the trusts, but some fundholders might spend up front because they rely on the boards to deal with the emergency purchasing and because they have the clout to jump queues for those in their practices who require emergency provision.
  Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in Belfast and many parts of Northern Ireland the boards ring-fence the costs for fundholders' patients but not for non-fundholders' patients? That is particularly true in Belfast, and many patients suffer as a direct result, but it is not the general practitioners' fault. One could argue that it was the boards' fault, but in reality it is the Government's fault.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will also be aware that some practices—including, I suspect, the one with which he has been associated—have sought to join multi-funds and have been held back by the argument that training would not be available. Some are excellent practices with a high reputation for patient care and service provision.
  I suspect that this year, as last year, the boards, which have been holding back funds—I am thinking particularly of the Eastern health and social services board—will suddenly discover that they have a fair amount to spend before the end of March and operations will be performed on Saturdays and Sundays while they try to clear the backlog. In the meantime, unnecessary suffering and distress are caused by the lack of a proper flow through the season.
  Last week, the Belfast Telegraph carried the headline, "Cancer Unit in Crisis". It has been said this evening that perhaps local newspapers carry such headlines more than national newspapers. However, the headline refers to the major cancer service in Northern Ireland. For some time it has wanted another simulator to locate tumours and plan treatments, as the existing machine has broken down.
  The problem is not that the staff are not doing their work properly. I know that personally, and the newspaper article quoted a staff member as saying:
  "'We are working really hard—I was in yesterday from 7 am and wasn't leaving until after 11 pm.'"
  I know of other parts of the health service where people working under pressure have not even taken their statutory holidays, never mind days off in lieu for working extra hours.
  The pressure is on, and I wonder why there are delays. Is it because discussion is taking place about where the centre of excellence should be? In the meantime, cancer patients who should be treated as soon as possible—doctors keep telling us that more can be done if treatment is given earlier—are left waiting. Why do we have that problem throughout the country?
  I agreed with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) about the pricing of surgery. It is easier now to target and to price. I wonder how right hon. and hon. Members would react if, in a national health service hospital trust, a cardiac surgeon said, "You need an operation; we could do it; but the board has not enough money to purchase it."

  805
  As I understand it, the cost is primarily to pay for the skills of the surgeons, specialists and nursing staff, although some money will certainly have to be spent on materials and so on. The operating theatre will be the same in any case, because there is only one hospital that does cardiac surgery in Northern Ireland. It is a scandal that we have got into the position where a surgeon employed by the national health service in a trust can say that for the want of £12,000 an urgent operation cannot be performed. We must get beyond that because, apart from anything else, it puts intolerable pressure on people.
  I want to issue a word of caution. Amid the resumption of terror, I wonder whether we should consider again the provision of regional services. If there are those who want to desecrate the sanctuary that is a hospital by murdering patients or their visitors, regional services should not be provided there. The hospitals may be local or may be doing the work of a district general hospital, but the people of Northern Ireland should not have to visit for health care places where lives are endangered by terrorist thugs.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: My constituents would not recognise the picture of the health service painted by the Opposition, which was a travesty of what is happening on the ground. They would recognise that more patients are being treated more locally in more modern facilities, that waiting lists have been shortened and that they have the most outstanding general practitioners and other health service professionals that they have ever had.
  I offer the House a balloon trip across my constituency so that we can look down on some of the health service changes on the ground. As we went over Glossop, we would see how two old hospitals have been transformed and given new lives. One is a centre for the elderly mentally ill; the other a homeward bound unit. In New Mills, a new future is being given to 011ersett View hospital. In Buxton, there is a debate about how the town's three historic hospitals can best meet its health needs into the next century.
  A little way across the constituency border, Tameside general hospital has had massive new investment, much of it under the chairmanship of Tony Favell, whom many hon. Members will recall with affection from his time in the House. Stockport's Stepping Hill hospital has also had massive investment. That is the picture of what is happening in hospitals that my constituents appreciate.
  If we were to go closer down, we would see what is happening in GPs' surgeries. New surgeries have been built in Glossop, Buxton, New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Hayfield and Hope. Across the constituency, there is new investment in our health service, and services are being delivered in a way never seen before. That is the Government's record on health: a thriving partnership with GPs, investing for the future and delivering better services.
  In case some people think that High Peak is the only place where the improvements are happening, right across the country better health services are being delivered. We are treating 3 million more people than when we came to power 17 years ago, and 1 million more than when the
  806
  health service reforms started only five years ago. Waiting lists are being reduced: the number of people waiting for more than 12 months has been reduced from more than 200,000 to 15,000. Infant mortality has been halved and life expectancy has been increased by two years. That is a formidable track record of which we can be justly proud.
  The most exciting aspect of what is happening in our health service is the way in which we are looking to the future and seeking reform so that proper attention is given to primary care. I welcome that because GPs know what is most needed and important in their localities and because the more that we can do locally, the less need there is for patients to travel long distances to faraway hospitals in communities that they do not know.
  In High Peak, we were privileged to receive a visit from the Prime Minister recently. As more than 90 per cent. of my constituents are covered by fundholding practices, I thought it appropriate that he should be taken to see one for himself. As it happened, we took him to the one that had won the fundholding practice of the year award, but it could have been any of the outstanding practices in my constituency. They offer new surgeries and treatments to our community. It is important to recognise that that does not benefit only the patients of fundholding GPs but the community across the board.
  In Glossop, the average waiting time for in-patient treatment has dropped from 18 months to three and a half months since fundholding was introduced. For out-patient services such as dermatology, the waiting period has fallen from two years to four weeks; for gynaecology, from more than 11 weeks to four; for ear, nose and throat treatment, from 20 weeks to four. Those dramatic reductions have been brought about by fundholding practices and they help people across the community, not only those who use fundholding doctors.
  Fundholding practices have been examining new ideas. Part of a cottage hospital has been brought back into use and turned into a rehabilitation unit. That process was started by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State five years ago when he was a Health Minister. He stopped the closure of that hospital. Now, thanks to the way in which our GPs and health authority have considered the matter, it has been given new life, enabling people who leave hospital to spend time there to ensure that they are ready to return home.
  New services have been introduced. I shall not mention them all but they include locally provided electrocardiography, audiology, dermatology, an additional district nurse, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, and new chiropody services. Complementary therapies such as acupuncture and the Alexander treatment are provided by one Glossop surgery. That is the difference that fundholding has made.
  The motion states that the Opposition
  "believes that government policy has left many people in urban and rural communities without the access to health care they need, especially in relation to services for the elderly and for those being discharged from hospital".
  That is sad because a few weeks ago the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), as a shadow health spokesman—and unannounced as she did not have the courtesy to follow parliamentary protocol by telling me that she was coming—visited my constituency to see the services. According to the local papers, she said that she was greatly impressed. She should have seen how those services were being improved in a rural area and how they were delivering better services for my constituents.

  807
  It is not only fundholding doctors who are making great strides. Last week, I met Dr. Richard Fitton, who has a small practice in Hadfield. He sends all his patients who go to hospital a survey form to find out what was good, bad or needed improvement. If there are problems, he asks them to come and discuss them to assess how they can be addressed. That information is fed back to hospitals so that they can improve services and ensure that problems do not recur. That is the sort of health service that we want—one that is listening, learning and improving. That is why I so passionately believe that GPs should be at the forefront of taking reforms forward.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has listened to GPs in his consultation process on improving the health service. He met GPs in Buxton some months ago and took direct action on what he heard. In particular, he enabled them to implement their ideas, which had previously been impossible, on improving out-of-hours cover when surgeries are closed. GPs appreciate that the Government listen to their views.
  As we consider how to take things forward, I hope that we will examine how to extend pilot schemes more widely than is currently proposed. We should encourage GPs to think widely about how to improve services. We need a no-holds-barred approach to deciding what to do next. I fear that some health authorities may try to stifle some of those excellent ideas. I want to ensure that there is a right of appeal so that ideas can be heard and developed.
  The Government have suggested that through the efficiency index, GPs should improve their efficiency—their level of activity—by 2.75 per cent. One surgery in High Peak has improved not by 2.75 per cent. but by 34 per cent. That massive improvement in activity was the result of becoming a fundholding practice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will examine the formula that has been set by the Department whereby one episode in secondary care equates to 54 in primary care. That is a disincentive for health authorities to reconfigure their services and should be reassessed. He should also reconsider whether there should be a requirement that there should be a GP on the board of every health authority so that we can be certain that the views of GPs will be taken into account as their ideas and policies are developed.
  In Buxton, there is an important review of our hospital services that centres on the Devonshire royal hospital, which is one of the most remarkable hospitals in the country. It must be the only hospital in the country that was built not as a hospital, but as riding stables 200 years ago. As time passed, and the landed gentry stopped coming to Buxton in such large numbers, and thus no longer required somewhere to exercise their horses, the building was covered with a dome and was gradually turned into a hospital. In fact, it is the widest dome of any building in Europe outside St. Peter's in Rome—not what one might expect to find on top of the Pennines. It has now become one of the most important centres for the delivery of health care, especially recovery from serious injuries, using the remedial powers of our local spa waters.
  Inevitably, the building's running costs are high because of the history of the building and its structure. I welcome the imaginative new approach that has been taken, thanks to Ministers, to find a joint way forward by combining the health aspects of that building with its
  808
  heritage aspects to see how best we can keep that hospital in operation. Currently talks are going on between NHS Estates and English Heritage. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on those discussions to ensure that they come to a fruitful and valuable conclusion.
  I have listened to Opposition Members' speeches, and the most important point to remember is that we must look at the reality of our health service. Year on year, the health service provided in High Peak is improving, as it is right across the board. New services and new treatments are being carried out in better facilities. Those services are being provided more locally after a shorter waiting period and are delivered by a wonderfully dedicated and expert staff.
  Of course there are difficulties and problems—they are inevitable in a service that treats millions of patients every year. We seek to consider them in detail to see how, in each year, we can learn from the problems that we face and move on to improve the service yet further. The sadness of it is that all that would be ruined by a Labour Government, for all their fine talk about their commitment to the health service. We know from their history that the real funding crises in the health service have occurred under a Labour Government—the only time in its history when funding was cut occurred under a Labour Government.
  We also know that there is a real problem now because of the Opposition's complete confusion over policy and the future of fundholding. The motion is fundamentally flawed because the Labour party does not have any proposals to take our health service forward. That motion should be defeated in the interests of patients not only in High Peak but across the country.
  The country will soon have to exercise choice on health issues. It will have to choose between a party that is committed to a year-on-year increase in health service funding—the Conservative party—and the Labour party, which is not. People must make a choice between a party that is committed to creating a health service led by patient need—the Conservative party—and a party which is still led too much by producer interests. The choice will be between a party that believes in increasing efficiency, but not at the cost of quality of patient care—the Conservative party—and the Labour party, which has opposed virtually every step that we have taken to improve efficiency.
  The health service is in a better condition now than it has been in the 49 years since it started. There is no ground for complacency because a huge amount still needs to be done. The way to show that is by rejecting the motion tonight.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) says that there is no cause for complacency, but I have sat here and listened as every Conservative Member has been complacent. I have listened to a lot of speeches in the House: some have been boring and some have been controversial, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) on managing to combine the two qualities in one speech.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to mislead the House, but he did try to rewrite history when he gave us a lesson about how the Tory party set up the

  809
  NHS and has been one of its backers since 1918. If I may badly misquote Nye Bevan, one does not need a crystal ball to see what the Tories thought of the NHS—one has only to read Hansard, which shows that the Tories not only opposed the establishment of the NHS in principle, but opposed every clause, every line, every dot of the enabling Bill. I do not need any more history lessons from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. David Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heppell: No, the hon. Gentleman has only just walked into the Chamber.
  I do not agree literally with some of my constituents who feel that Parliament is often a pantomime, but we had a good performance from the pantomime dame tonight. All that we have heard about from Conservative Members has been good news. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) gave the game away when he started to say, "Here is the good news." He then cited a great list of operations now being carried out, including those on cataracts. It would be good news indeed if anyone in my constituency had had any such an operation, but not 1,000, not 100 or even 10 people have managed to have any of those operations carried out.
  The hon. Gentleman's contribution made me think back to our previous debate on the health service, on 20 November, when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) revealed that the Tory party had launched a campaign to try to get people together who had good things to say about the NHS because it was worried about the bad stories coming out. It became clear today that all Tory Members have signed up to the good news club. We get no bad news at all from the Tories—only good news: there is no crisis, no problem and nothing to worry about.
  It is a shame that that feeling is not shared by my constituents, nor by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts nor by the members of those trusts. That is clear from the letter of 9 January, which was sent to all members of trusts and health authorities and states:
  "Dear Council Member
  Emergency Admissions
  NAHAT is receiving many messages of concern from trusts and health authorities about the growing pressure being experienced by the NHS through rising emergency admissions. This has been exacerbated by the current bad weather and restrictions in the provision of personal social services during the Christmas period."
  The trusts and the organisation that represents them and also the health authorities recognise that there is a problem, but the Minister and his hon. Friends still do not seem to recognise that.
  The crisis in my area did not start at Christmas, as it seems to have done for many others. In the debate on 20 November, I recounted how the chairman of Nottingham health authority had said that the authority faced a deficit of £11 million and that it would be a disaster if it did not manage to overcome it.
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is now discussing finance, as I assume that his thesis is that his health authority has received insufficient funding. In fact, it was increased by 2.36 per cent. in real terms
  810
  this year. Is he saying that any reduction in that on an annual basis during the lifetime of the next Parliament would be unacceptable to him, because that is exactly what those on the Opposition Front Bench are proposing?
  Mr. Heppell: I do not agree with the Minister that that is what my right hon. and hon. Friends are proposing. The Minister should know that Nottingham health authority has been traditionally underfunded. According to the Government's own formula, it should receive more than 100 per cent. in funding because of its teaching hospitals, but it has never been funded at that level. The Government recognised that and gave it an extra £5 million; according to the Government's formula, it is being funded at 97.6 per cent.—which is still not equivalent to 100 per cent, but at least it is an improvement.
  I am worried, however, because the Under-Secretary of State for Health—the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam)—has acknowledged that the extra allocation is for next year and that this year the authority already faces a £7 million deficit. The problem for me is that nothing has been done to help the authority this year. On 20 November, I stated that Queen's medical centre at Nottingham had had to cancel 350 non-emergency operations for October, November and December because of that funding crisis. Because of the exceptional circumstances at Christmas and the new year, even more operations have now had to be cancelled.
  I recognise that there were exceptional circumstances this winter, but I do not completely accept that argument. The Queen's medical centre said that there was a 50 per cent. increase on normal levels for Friday evenings and Saturdays. It should not compare the Friday and Saturday over Christmas with a normal weekend; it should compare those days with Fridays, Saturdays and Christmases in the past, and with days when there has been bad weather. Many of the circumstances are predictable: winter, Christmas and the new year are not exceptional—we know about them. I do not pretend to be a great fan of Michael Fish, but when he forecasts sub-zero temperatures, I do not need Mystic Meg to tell me that if there is ice, some people will slip on it and hurt themselves, and that if they hurt themselves badly they will end up in hospital, which will mean that more hospital beds will be needed. It all seems fairly simple to me. I am sure that people should be better able to plan for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) talked about past problems when people have been left on trolleys for hours. At one stage over Christmas and the new year, the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham ran out of trolleys. It was not just a case of people not having beds: they could not even get trolleys. I took the problem up with the chief nurse, who assured me that it was not a problem as it was only the accident and emergency department that had run out of trolleys and that staff had managed to get spare trolleys from elsewhere in the hospital.
  I did not know that there were spare trolleys lying about, and it makes me wonder why the same argument is not used about beds: why cannot all the spare beds that are left lying around in hospitals be used? That never seems to happen. The reason is that there are not so many beds as there used to be. In my own region—the Trent area—there were 11,085 acute beds in 1989–90;

  811
  by 1995–96, the figure was down to 10,333. Overall, the total number of beds lost in that short period was 5,197. I accept the arguments for some beds going and I recognise that the different ways in which patients are now treated mean that not so many hospital beds are needed, but if some of those beds had been saved, the problems experienced at Queen's medical centre might not have occurred. Some 3,193 of those beds were general or acute beds; they were not beds that were no longer needed because of care in the community.
  I am not so concerned about what happened on those nights when the emergency services almost reached breaking point. I am more concerned that not only were 350 operations cancelled in October, November and December, but there is now a hold on all operations. Although there have been plenty of examples in the local press since Christmas—headlines include
  "Ops fall victim to QMC rush"
  and
  "Ops put on ice at QMC"—
  the public have still not been told the complete truth. On 30 December the medical director instructed that only urgent surgical cases and people who had spent more than 18 months on the waiting list would be taken in for treatment, the latter being done to help the Government figures for waiting lengths of more than 18 months, not for medical reasons.
  On 6 January that policy was changed again. It was said that the only patients to be admitted for operations were emergency and life-threatening cases. None of the operations and new procedures that the Government say are great and can be done on the NHS is being carried out on my constituents. They were denied operations in October, November and December and they are now to be denied them in January, February and March. For six months of the year, all that my constituents can get is emergency provision. When will that become a crisis? Will it be when they can get only emergency provision for nine, 10 or 11 months of the year? The Government must accept that there is a crisis now.
  The problem may seem slight to the Minister. The press release lists conditions such as hernias, which people think are not that special. I will describe some of my constituency cases involving people waiting for treatment. One woman is waiting for a hysterectomy. She was expecting to have the operation on 29 November; now she is not likely to get it until the new financial year. Men may not think that that operation is important, but I bet that there are not many women who take that view.
  Another case involves an elderly lady with an arthritic spine; she, too, will have to wait until the new financial year before she can have an operation. Someone with a swollen bladder was taken into the operating theatre and then taken out again; he was sent home two days later and told to ring to find out when a bed would be available for him. By the time he did so, the ban had been imposed and he was told, "Sorry—no operations until the next financial year." If I had a swollen bladder, I would not think that it was trivial. Someone whose knee is in danger of packing in and who has already had two operations on it has now been told, "We'll have to wait until it gets worse: when it goes completely, we'll fit you up with a new knee rather than doing the surgery now."
  Those problems are serious. Ministers may say that such operations are merely routine, but they are important for those waiting for them. If Ministers had to rely on the
  812
  health service as most of my constituents do, rather than having private health insurance, they would ensure that such problems were put right tomorrow.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate, having only recently renounced my Trappist vows as a parliamentary private secretary in the Department of Health.
  In discussions and debates on the national health service in this country, we owe it to the Opposition to do them the courtesy of adopting their definition of success. The definition of success that we can rely on is that of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said that the acid test of the success and effectiveness of the NHS in this country was the number of people treated. He speaks from some knowledge and experience as it was his party that cut spending on the NHS in real terms during the last Labour Government in 1977–78. To bring the matter up to the present day, despite all the bluster and the individual case studies about which we have heard today, we have still to hear a commitment from the Opposition Front Bench to match the Government's pledge to increase NHS funding year on year above the rate of inflation.
  All that we need to do to see the success of the NHS is to look at the figures. Despite all the arguments about finished consultant episodes—a basis for gathering statistics, the origin of which lay in the last days of the last Labour Government—so long as we use the same yardstick, we can track an increase in the amount of treatment available to individual patients in the NHS. When all the rhetoric and party politics are stripped away, that is what really matters.
  We know that more than 3 million more treatments were carried out in 1995 than in 1979—and 1 million more than in 1991, when we introduced the NHS reforms. That means that 3,500 more treatments were carried out each day. Do not those statistics put into stark perspective the individual cases culled from hon. Members' constituency correspondence? The number of hip replacements is up from under 29,000 in 1978–79—and from zero not many years before that, when the operation was not available—to more than 58,000 last year.
  Another acid test of whether the NHS is working well is waiting times, about which we hear much less from Opposition Members than we used to. Could that be because since 1987 the number of patients waiting more than a year for hospital treatment has been cut from more than 200,000 to just 15,000? Half of all patients are seen immediately and half of the remainder are seen within five weeks. Nearly 75 per cent. are seen within three months and 98 per cent. within a year.
  Another commonly accepted yardstick of the health of a specific nation and of its health service's success is life expectancy. We know that in Russia male life expectancy has decreased in the past few years, but a child born today in this country can expect to live two years longer than a child born in 1979. Over the same period, the proportion of babies dying in the first year of life has fallen by almost a half. By any standards, those are impressive figures.
  We have heard about the increase of 55,000 in the number of nurses and midwives and of 22,500 in the number of doctors and dentists. We hear a lot about

  813
  so-called bureaucracy in the NHS, but it is worth remembering that, according to recent figures, for every senior manager in the NHS there are no fewer than 77 other people providing direct care to patients.
  Of course, measuring the success of the NHS is not only a matter of figures; it also depends on the experiences of individual patients who present to their doctor or their local hospital. As I go around local GPs' surgeries and local hospitals, I think that the experience of patients is much as is reflected in the figures. Record numbers of patients are being treated—some 39,000 were treated last year in Eastbourne hospitals, and that figure is likely to be exceeded this year. Around 40 per cent. of the electorate in my constituency is of retirement age or older and, on average, as happens across the country, the elderly members of the population account for a greater proportion of NHS spending than other age groups, as is absolutely right and proper.
  The increasing figures do not happen simply by accident; they are the result of the magnificent efforts of doctors, nurses, ancillary workers and—yes, let it be said—managers. We have increased funding year on year and we have promised to continue to do so. This year's increase for my area was the second largest in the country—some £15.8 million extra in cash terms for the local health authority, which represents a real-terms increase, after inflation, of 2.38 per cent. Even the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was good enough to describe such increases as "relatively generous" and he was absolutely right.
  A primary care-led NHS is a cornerstone, if not the cornerstone, of Government policy. Primary care is doing well, not only in my constituency, but across the country. By April, some 60 per cent. of patients in this country will be part of a fundholding practice. Only the other day, I visited one such practice in my constituency—that of Dr. John Clarke and his partners—and was present at the unveiling of a new bone scanner to gauge conditions such as osteoporosis. The scanner was installed at that practice, but it will be available for use by other GPs throughout the area. That would have been almost inconceivable in the old NHS and it is a perfect example of the flexibility and high aspirations of the modern NHS under the Conservative Government.
  Another exciting development in and around my constituency has been the recent setting up of a pilot total purchasing project, which involves family doctors and all 15 practices in Eastbourne and the surrounding area and covers a staggering 135,000 patients with a total purchasing power of £70 million. It is an incredibly impressive scheme and I believe that it is the largest in the country. The board represents some 70 GPs in nine non-fundholding and six fundholding practices, as well as the health authority and the community health council. I foresee provision in many other parts of the United Kingdom developing in a similar manner and our local total purchasing project will show the way.
  We have heard a great deal in the debate about winter pressures. The problem tends to happen every year: it is a combination of influenza, cold weather and illness among medical staff. Like other hon. Members, I keep in touch with the accident and emergency department at my local district general hospital and staff there have been coping well. I spoke recently to the consultant, Mr. Rowland
  814
  Cottingham, and to the chief executive and they believe that they are coping well, despite the extra pressures. I hope to visit the accident and emergency department again very soon. I should mention in passing that Mr. Cottingham and his colleagues were recently involved in the piloting in my area of the health services accreditation initiative, which was launched only a few days ago as a national programme for the NHS.
  Nationally, we have learnt the lessons of previous winters. As mentioned, we have set up the national intensive care bed register and we have pumped an extra £25 million into the system to help it to cope with winter pressures. In my area, arrangements for handling emergency hospital admissions have been agreed between East Sussex, Brighton and Hove and the aim of that co-operation between hospitals in our area is to ensure that hospital beds will always be available for emergency patients. The hospitals have agreed to keep the Sussex ambulance service up to date with how many beds are available and to work together, sharing the pressure, if one hospital is full. Local GPs are also being kept informed. That is a sensible, straightforward way of dealing with the inevitable peaks and troughs of pressure on accident and emergency departments.
  Finally, I turn to Opposition policy on the national health service—if policy is not too ambitious a word to describe the ragbag of prejudice and anecdote that we have heard today from Labour Members. The problem facing the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is this: the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has bowled out his middle stump—indeed, he has gone further and broken the hon. Gentleman's cricket bat over his knee. The hon. Gentleman therefore has no way of promising extra money for the NHS—it would appear that that option has gone. Either the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East means what he says, in which case a Labour Government—if such a thing were ever to happen—would apply Conservative spending plans, or the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right to promise extra money for the NHS and his right hon. Friend is wrong. Which is true? We should be told.
  The Labour party is now apparently committed to working on the basis of the Conservative Government's spending plans if Labour were to win an election—this at a time when Labour has still not matched nor come close to matching our pledge on NHS spending. The British people do not need to take our word on NHS spending—they need only look at our record to see how, year after year after year, we have increased spending on the NHS in real terms and how the Government have made it a priority. NHS spending has increased by a massive 74 per cent. in real terms since 1979; as we have heard, it now represents spending of £724 for every man, woman and child in this country, whereas the equivalent figure in real terms for 1978–79 was only £444.
  The other worry lurking behind what passes for Labour party policy on health is the trade unions. We have heard once or twice today about the winter of discontent. It has been rightly said that a two-year freeze on public spending would be the equivalent of two winters of discontent. Last time, the dead remained unburied, cancer patients had to cross picket lines for treatment, and earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) told the moving story of how his father was treated at that time when he was suffering from cancer.

  815
  The people to whom I talk on their doorsteps and in my surgeries have nothing but praise for our NHS. Opposition spokesmen have a vested interest in denigrating and running down the NHS and the efforts and commitment of those who work in it. It is a measure of their growing desperation that the picture that they paint of the NHS is wholly unrecognisable, not just to those who work in it but to those who use it. Anyone who has recently used the NHS, or who has a close family member who has, will have nothing but praise for it. I suggest that Opposition spokespersons talk to those people instead of listening to the horror stories that they have been spinning today. The fact is that the NHS is a great British success story, and it deserves the support of us all.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I want to discuss two topics that have resulted from the NHS reforms; and to be very parochial. The first is the new district hospital for Durham; the second is the shortage of hospital beds in Durham.
  The project for the new hospital was promised more than 20 years ago. The old area health authority and the North-West Durham health authority had had the lowest capital expenditure in the whole northern region. In the early 1990s, therefore, it was agreed to build a new district general hospital. In February 1992, when the choosing of a site for the new hospital was proving difficult, the then chairman of the North regional health authority, Peter Carr, wrote to me as follows:
  "You can be assured that the new hospital will be constructed. The capital funds have been set aside and the Durham project is top of our priority list."
  Five years later, we still have no new district general hospital, and I am not confident that we will ever get it.
  Since then, the Government have refused to build any new hospital buildings out of public sector funds and have turned to their so-called private finance initiative, which is a complete and utter failure. At the moment, the PFI is nothing but a con trick—a promise of new hospitals which just do not happen.
  In 1994, the Minister for Health told me that, since the launch of the PFI in 1992, the NHS had been encouraged to exploit the benefits of collaboration with the private sector. He continued by saying that, increasingly, the private sector is bringing in its innovation, dynamism and experience to the NHS, to improve services and get better value for money. Perhaps the same Minister tonight will tell me where there has been a successful PH incorporating these conditions: it is certainly not in Durham. I am led to believe that there is not one in the whole country either. Indeed, the Library told me this morning that no building work had started on any scheme, and that there was no date set for any to start.
  I was originally told that the preferred bidder and the business case would be finalised by the end of 1994; yet today, at the beginning of 1997, we have not even reached that stage. Is that an example of the success of the private finance initiative?
  In 1996, the trust told me that the full business case had been prepared, and that—in conjunction with County Durham health authority—the preferred option would be forwarded to the Treasury for final approval. We are still waiting. The trust continues to claim that this is quicker and more efficient than building in the public sector; and
  816
  the trust continues to tell us that the hospital will be completed quicker than it could have been by the public sector. What a load of hogwash.
  The cost of the PFI process so far has been well over £1 million; this cost has been incurred just by the procedure, nothing else. Meanwhile, the trust's financial position has worsened. More than 50 beds have been closed; theatre sessions have been reduced; targets have been set; and there are limits for certain operations. The trust was told that it had to save £2 million during the current financial year. Those measures are a direct result of financial pressures, but they are also in line with the trust's long-term strategy for the new district general hospital in Durham.
  In 1996–97, there is a £2 million loss of revenue. In 1997–98, a further £2 million loss is projected. For 1998–99, another £1 million loss is projected. Even with all these savings, there is still no guarantee of a new hospital being built. An interim rationalisation plan continues in place—the running down of services in the sister hospital at Shotley Bridge, and the transfer of services to Dryburn in Durham.
  The situation in October was so grave that I received a letter from the consultant dermatologist, Mr. Ire, and signed by another eight senior consultants at the hospital. It concerned the acute crisis in medical services in north Durham. He said:
  "There is a great danger of a collapse of general medicine, including cardiology and heart attacks in North Durham, as a result of a halt being called to a process of site rationalisation, whereby Shotley bridge was going to gradually decant into Dryburn. The situation has gone so far that we are now unable to recruit junior staff to Shotley Bridge beyond February and the Post Graduate Dean would certainly not allow junior staff to work there beyond that time."
  What a dreadful situation for the health service in Durham to be in.
  I do not blame the hospital trust or County Durham health authority, although both could have acted slightly differently at times. The fault clearly lies with the Government, and with the health reforms that have created this appalling mess. I blame privatisation and the breaking up of the health service.
  As for building the new district general hospital, things go from bad to worse. Last September, the director of technical and leisure services for Durham city council contacted me by letter. He informed me that senior members and officers of the council had met representatives of the North Durham Acute Hospitals trust, the health authority and representatives of Consort Healthcare, which is the PFI partner of the authority. He wrote:
  "It is apparent that for the hospital to be built and fitted out, the PFI partners wish to raise finances by the utilisation of surplus land on the Dryburn site for a retail development. Senior members are concerned that the City Council will be faced with the proposal for inappropriate development to finance a funding gap to provide a much needed district general hospital. They feel that the citizens of Durham should not be required to make such a choice, nor would they be able to recommend that they do so."
  In effect, it was being requested that a supermarket be built in the hospital grounds in one of the most sensitive parts of Durham—a suggestion both stupid and unreasonable. I immediately made my position clear on this issue, and said that I would not support such a supermarket development on the hospital site and would

  817
  not be prepared to have the council or myself blackmailed into accepting the retail development, even if it meant losing the new district general hospital.
  The trust was adamant that it was blackmailing no one, but was simply requesting that the land be built on to make extra money to help fit the hospital out. However, the presentation which the hospital trust gave the local authority made it clear that there was an attempt to influence the council's decision on whether to grant planning permission on the basis that the hospital would not be built. It said:
  "Funding issues: funding shortfall exists. Not possible to realise full extent of service provision. More existing buildings retained and new buildings left as a shell until cash available. Disposal of surplus land necessary. Complete scheme relies on maximum return on surplus land. Food retail development is only solution for surplus land to bridge the gap."
  It was clear that, unless the trust obtained planning permission to build a retail development, our district general hospital was threatened. That is what the PFI means—no new facilities unless the private sector can make a killing.
  I shall now deal with the lack of beds in the hospital. In 1995, prior to the cost improvement measures taken in the hospital, there were 670 beds. At one stage before that, there were 900 beds. There are now 580 beds. The original outline business case, which was approved in December 1994, gave the PFI bid a figure of 565 beds. We are now told that the trust has undertaken a fundamental review of bed numbers and the number of beds in the new PFI bid has been cut to 454.
  The trust tells us that that is all that is necessary. I neither accept nor believe that. The drastic cut in the number of beds has taken place simply because of the amount of cash available under the PFI bid. If we ever get a hospital, it will not have enough beds. How on earth can a new hospital with 454 beds cope when the present hospital with 580 beds cannot cope?
  Morale is so low among consultants in the hospital that many are thinking of leaving. When I discussed the matter with a consultant, he said: "There is a smell of decline." What are we coming to when a consultant says that there is a smell of decline in a hospital? The interim rationalisation programme has made virtually no savings, and straight cuts will have to be made over the next three years. Cuts totalling some £8.6 million—15 per cent. of the budget—are now forecast. That is even higher than originally thought.
  If the PFI bid cannot produce more than 450 beds, it is not worthy, and should be looked at again. The brand new state-of-the-art hospital that has been described, with 450 beds, will be unable to cope.
  Although I have been receiving complaints from my constituents over the past year or so about the lack of beds, in the space of a week, I have been contacted on two separate occasions about the lack of beds in the hospital.
  On one occasion, Mrs. Budd, a constituent of mine, had been on a waiting list for a serious operation. She was twice given a date and, on both occasions—once in October and once in November last year—her operation was cancelled and no further date was offered to her. She was informed that her operation had been cancelled because, although the consultant could do the operation,
  818
  no intensive care bed was available for her after the operation. I was told this morning that last week she was given another date. Guess what happened—the operation was cancelled again. It is a sad state of affairs when a consultant cannot proceed with an operation because he cannot be sure that an intensive care bed will be available once the patient has had the operation.
  A further appalling case was brought to my attention at the beginning of January. Mr. Taylor, an 84-year-old from my constituency, was admitted to hospital for treatment, but, unfortunately, no beds were available. Eventually, he was found a bed, but he tragically died some days later. The coroner was so concerned about this case that in court he advised the man's family to contact their Member of Parliament, because, he said, the case was so serious. The hospital is currently investigating the case.
  The twist in the tail is that the chief executive of the trust, Mr. Brian Waite, the most vociferous supporter of the PFI bid, has done a runner. I am told that he has gone to a job with neither promotion prospects nor a wage increase. He has gone to Carlisle. Who would go to Carlisle when he could stay in Durham? I should have thought that Mr. Waite would have wanted to wait for the PFI bid to be completed and see his dream come to fruition. Perhaps he thought that, by the time that happened, he would have retired and might need a bed in a geriatric unit in Durham, which would not be available because all the beds would have been closed. That is probably why he has gone.
  Mr. Waite's departure sums up the exact position: had he believed that the PFI would give us a new hospital, he would have waited to see it come to fruition. The fact that he has left tells us clearly what he felt was happening with regard to the future of the bid.
  The private finance initiative is a farce, as are the national health service reforms. I suspect that the case in Durham is not unique, and, in the meantime, my constituents wait for a new district general hospital and have a steadily deteriorating service.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: There is often a tendency in the House to generalise to such an extent that the conclusions are almost worthless. Conversely, individual cases are sometimes dealt with so specifically that extrapolation to policy is virtually meaningless.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), to whom I listened with great interest, as I always do, is a past master at those two dubious arts. Today he surpassed even his usual ability in that respect. I was astonished at his nerve in citing a handful of sad and undoubtedly unacceptable cases and giving the impression that those illustrated the norm, which they palpably do not.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to luxuriate in the idea of crisis. He has a fantasy that the national health service has reached such a point of crisis that it is about to collapse, which is plainly untrue. When he is unable to establish that theory, he insinuates that there is a cover-up and he cannot get all the facts. The only cover-up is the Labour party's policies—or lack of policies—on health.
  The hon. Gentleman's speeches in the House are usually of a high standard, but today he rambled, probably because he saw lurking behind him the figures of his

  819
  party's Treasury spokesmen. If they exercise such influence on him in opposition, I shudder to think what would happen if he were in government. The effect was that no policies emerged until the end of his speech, when he plucked out of the air two ideas that appear to be policy.
  The first was about saving money. The hon. Gentleman claimed that he would be able to save £100 million by cutting bureaucracy. The House needs to know precisely how he will do that. One hundred million pounds is paltry, compared with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already saved recently in bureaucratic costs: £300 million—three times that. How does the hon. Gentleman square that claim with the supposed policy of his party to restore the regional level of NHS bureaucracy? The regional level was cut out by this Government, saving precisely £100 million.
  The hon. Gentleman's second policy seemed to be to do away with the internal market, yet he seems to defend the purchaser-provider split. That is a strange semantic exercise. I fail to see how he will do away with the market but keep the mechanism of the internal market. He owes the House a detailed explanation of how that will operate, what the cost will be and what disruption will be caused to the NHS by another apparently large reorganisation.
  We also need to know what the impact of Labour's policy, whatever it may be, will be on the PFI. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on that, because he described a situation surprisingly similar to that in my constituency, but moving in an entirely different direction.
  Will the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury stop all the PFI schemes? How will he explain that to the people in the towns and cities throughout the country who are expecting hospitals to be built because PFI schemes are virtually in place? How will he justify robbing them of their hospitals?
  What will the Labour party do about GP fundholding? How will it explain its intentions to the thousands of people who are benefiting because they are on the lists of GP fundholding practices? What will the hon. Gentleman say to them? What is his policy on GP fundholding? What he says in the Chamber contradicts what he told The Guardian on 1 November, when he seemed to advance some powerful and rather impressive arguments in favour of GP fundholders.
  Dr. Hendron: I am in medical practice and have some experience of such matters. Some fundholders and their patients do very well, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that many non-fundholders who want to become fundholders are now not accepted? Government funding in the north of Ireland has not been ring-fenced for patients of non-fundholders. That is a serious problem—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has encountered it.
  Mr. Merchant: I am grateful for that information. I am not an expert on Northern Ireland and I was not aware of the situation there. Thousands of my constituents benefit from belonging to GP fundholder practices and I welcome a change in the law that would, I hope, extend the scope of GP fundholding and make it more easily available to other GPs. I hope that that opportunity will be extended to Northern Ireland also.
  820
  The Labour party's final policy admission concerns the fundamental question of funding the NHS. I will not labour the point—which has been made effectively in the debate not only by Conservative Members but by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—but, if the Labour party is to convince people that it has a credible policy for the health service, it must have a credible policy for funding the health service. That is completely lacking from its policy agenda. The Government have pledged to ensure that funding for the health service increases in real terms every year for the next five years. That is a powerful, and I think very welcome, pledge to the people of this country.
  The remainder of my remarks shall concentrate on some local topics affecting my constituents which also illustrate important elements of national policy. I think that we can measure the worth of a policy most effectively by gauging how it affects individuals in a particular area. We should not use single examples or make national generalisations, but look at the impact of policy within a constituency or a health authority area.
  My constituents consistently raise three issues with me. The first is waiting lists. That is a good-news story as far as the health service is concerned. Waiting lists are potentially the source of greatest concern to the ordinary person. Therefore, their reduction must be a priority and, when that is achieved, it is a triumph. That is precisely what has happened in my constituency. In the year end at March 1996, not one of my constituents waited for more than 12 months for medical treatment. That is a dramatic improvement on the record of the previous 10 years. I am assured that the results will be just as good this year, give or take a handful of people—we are seven over at present and we were seven under a few weeks ago. I am sure that the yearly average will show a wait of no more than 12 months. I think that that is real and welcome progress.
  The results in my constituency match the national figures that have been cited: a reduction since 1987 from 200,000 people waiting 12 months or more for treatment to only 15,000. That is a marked policy achievement that reflects the Government's commitment in that area. Our record funding for the health service of £43 billion and the extra £1.6 billion that will be spent next year are reflected at a local level. I pay tribute to Mark Rees, the chief executive of Bromley hospital, for ensuring that funding is well used at local level. Nationally, 75 per cent. of all patients are treated within three months, which is another excellent achievement.
  The second issue is accident and emergency services. It is a difficult area and I do not disguise the fact that the service is not running perfectly in the Bromley area. However, to speak of a crisis or of collapse would be completely to distort reality. The period over Christmas and new year is always difficult owing to a surge in the number of accident and emergency cases. Local staff are working extremely hard to handle the increased work load and they are succeeding admirably. Although there are some unacceptable cases of people waiting too long for treatment—they receive emergency treatment immediately, but must sometimes wait in A and E until beds become available—there is no question of the system collapsing or of the A and E unit being closed. That is because of the forward planning that was done. Bromley hospital has created a new observation ward, into which it could channel some admissions for observation before moving them on to hospital beds when needed.

  821
  It is important, too, to appreciate why there is a difficulty in that area. It is all very well hon. Members giving examples of problems that have emerged, but unless the reason is understood, little can be done to tackle them. The reason in Bromley is complex and long term and could not be solved overnight. For historical reasons, we have four different hospitals, serving a population of around 250,000, whereas ideally we would have only one.
  Because we have four small hospitals, when A and E patients come in, they then have to be observed and stabilised, and, if it is decided to admit them, many have to be transferred to another hospital in the borough. There is no other way of handling the situation, because the hospital with the A and E department is not large enough and cannot be expanded. There is no room; it is right in the centre of the town. Therefore, they have to be moved elsewhere, which brings me to my third and final point.
  There is a crying need—it is the only solution to this and a number of other local health problems—for a new acute general hospital. That would solve the problem of transfers and create a much more efficient system. There would not be the complex process of managing beds, wards and specialities in different locations. Patients would not have to be moved around, transported from hospital to hospital. There would be no need for diagnostic transfers. All those problems could be solved with a new acute general hospital. That is a PFI operation.
  I return to the speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham. Bromley has been in a similar situation, in that, originally, 20 years ago, the need for a new acute hospital was realised. In 1992, there was a problem with planning over the then chosen site. We have now passed the planning stage, the preferred bidder stage and the interim business plan stage. We are now finalising the final business plan. All that has been achieved in a remarkably swift period, which shows that the PFI can work.
  Shortly, a submission will go to the Treasury. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do his best to ensure that, when the Treasury considers this case, which I believe it will in February, it does so thoroughly, and that a decision is expedited so that we can see bricks and mortar—the construction of a new hospital—because it is a priority for the people of my area. It will show that the PFI works, and will overcome many of the smaller problems to which I have alluded.
  It is because I believe in the national health service, in the provision of free health care for all, across the board, that I also support the PFI. I believe that it will bring a bright new future for health care for my constituents, and will be another strong argument as to why they should support Government policy on health.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall be as short as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I want to draw the attention of the House to the situation that has emerged recently in the Dyfed Powys health authority. Two days before Christmas, the health authority published a strategy document in which it made some swingeing recommendations. I believe that it published the document only two days before Christmas because it wanted to defuse the public reaction that it feared was inevitable. That reaction is now mounting and it needs to be taken seriously.
  822
  The review is the outcome of a funding crisis that the health authority has for the moment. That crisis is being passed on to the trusts within the authority's area. The crisis has been caused by factors that I shall not take up now. However, the health authority reveals in its document—this part of it I believe—that it is underfunded because rurality is not considered significantly in the formula. It is a large region—the whole of Dyfed and Powys—and so needs four district general hospitals for a population that would need only two in an urban setting. Those hospitals are needed because of travelling distances.
  The document states:
  "there is a strong case for additional funding separately from a capitation basis for an area which has the scarcity of population and geographic area of Dyfed Powys."
  The authority says in the previous paragraph, however, that it does not think that the Welsh Office will respond. It thinks that the formula will not be changed, and that even if it were, things might be made worse.
  That is an appalling example of defeatism and a signal to the Welsh Office that the authority intends to do the business that the Welsh Office wants of it, which is to balance the books and cut services. In reality, we are talking only about cutting services. Let us not mince words about that.
  The health authority reckons that it must pull back or save more than £11 million over the next four years. Accordingly, it makes proposals that are designed to achieve such a saving. First, it is proposed to reduce the number of trusts from eight to two or three. There is no problem with that in theory but the proposal raises the question why so many trusts were created only four or five years ago.
  Secondly, it is proposed to close eight of 19 community hospitals. That is peculiar, given the endorsement from the Welsh Office in a document published only in August 1996, which emphasised the important role that community hospitals should play. I shall not quote at length from the Welsh Office document now, but another important institution in Wales, the Office of Research and Development for Health and Social Care, argues that community hospitals should or could be playing an enhanced rather than a reduced role.
  It is clear that the health authority has not thought through its proposals for community hospitals. Its document states:
  "We are prepared to discuss other options which would save the necessary money and provide effective services. In view of this, we are not being specific on the hospitals which close. We believe we have to work with our trusts".
  It continues in that vein. It is clear that the authority is looking for cuts without having made a clear analysis of why community hospitals should be closed. On what basis has it made such a radical proposal—to close nearly half the cottage or community hospitals in the area?
  The third proposal is to reduce the range of treatments or specialisms at a number of district general hospitals in the name of centralising activity. It is claimed that that is necessary because of an increasing trend towards specialisation and that sort of thing.
  In reality, if the range of specialisms at a place such as Bronglais were reduced, the status of the district general hospital would be reduced. Indeed, it would no longer be a district general hospital. It would not survive in a

  823
  meaningful sense as a DGH. That is an unthinkable option, bearing in mind the fact that the nearest other DGH is 50 miles away at Carmarthen. The others are much further away than that.
  The content of the document is poor stuff. The paper is full of vague proposals that are based on unjustified preconceptions. Crisis management is masquerading as strategy, and that is unacceptable. If the proposals were implemented, decisions would be taken that in all likelihood we would be bitterly regretting five years later.
  What is to be done in all the circumstances? Two things should be done now. If action is not taken, public reaction will justifiably be fierce. First, the health authority and the trusts should commission a properly conducted and objective study of the health care needs of Dyfed Powys. They should do so in association with the Office of Research and Development for Health and Social Care, which has expert knowledge and experience. It is in the business of building up a research understanding of health care needs in Wales. To that extent, I am much in sympathy with the Liberal amendment. The outcome of such an objective study, and the evidence that it provides, should be the basis of any restructuring.
  There is a funding crisis and the Welsh Office could and should step in with £4 million per annum additional funding until 2000 when, according to the health authority, the situation would improve because the cuts resulting from the change in the formula would no longer apply. We need that kind of money. We need a proper approach to restructuring and a strategy based on evidence, and we need money in the meantime.
  Many people in Wales are looking forward to the election, because they hope that the position will improve thereafter. In view of what has been said in the past few days, I question whether their optimism is justified. Many of us are profoundly worried that Labour has put itself in such a position that, following the election, it will find it difficult to add to public expenditure and investment, even though it may decide that it needs to do so. That issue will loom large in the next couple of months in the debate on health care in south-west Wales.
  9.25 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: This has been a necessary and timely debate, but not one that the Government wanted. On two occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) sought an emergency statement on the winter crisis, but the Secretary of State declined to make one.
  The British Medical Association said that this winter's crisis is the worst ever, and it provided a catalogue of evidence in support of that claim. What was the Minister's response? On the radio—not in the House—he said, in effect, "This is the winter. What do you expect? Demand always rises in the winter." Of course it does, but we expect the Secretary of State to be ready for it. He should be ready for the 'flu, bronchitis and other ills that winter brings, and for the inevitable and predictable spate of accidents caused by icy roads and footpaths, not to mention the increased fragility of elderly people in freezing weather.
  The Secretary of State and his colleagues have obviously been on a course at the Yorkshire Water school of management studies. Only there could they have learnt
  824
  to be surprised at the inevitable effects of the seasons. For Yorkshire Water, summer comes without anticipation of drought. For the Government, winter brings surprising new demands on the health service.
  The Secretary of State will go on any radio or television programme at any hour of the day to tell a disbelieving public that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories on health. The Government believe that the market is the cure-all for the national health service. We shall get rid of the internal market. We shall keep commissioning separate from the provision of care, but co-operation, not competition, will be our approach, and it will work. That is what people who work in the health service want, because they know that that will begin to dismantle some of the obstacles that stand in the way of the delivery of best patient care.
  As hospitals are forced to compete like businesses, so the purpose of their existence—the care and comfort of patients—is relegated. It is now commonplace for patients who arrive at a hospital to find that it is so short of beds—because they have been taken by emergency admissions—that planned operations have to be cancelled. Many of my hon. Friends have given examples of that problem. Other hospitals are so short of money that doctors, nurses and operating theatres work at below capacity, unable to perform operations until the next financial year. Increasingly, it is only the patients of GP fundholders who are able to have their operations before the end of the financial year.
  The public are understandably mystified by this misallocation of resources—but not Ministers. Cancellation of operations and discrimination between patients on grounds other than clinical need are part of the ineffable wisdom of the market. It is the triumph of the ideologue, but the politics of the bargain basement.
  My hon. Friends have given clear examples of the crisis. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) expressed concern on behalf of their constituents. Ministers have scorned the use of individual cases—and so would Opposition Members, if it were not that those cases illustrate the experience shared by so many others, and demonstrate the pressure on the service.
  A 70-year-old man died in Sheffield after being ferried 90 miles from his home in the west midlands, where a bed could not be found for him. In London, 22 patients had to spend the night on trolleys at Kingston hospital, while patients awaiting treatment at Lewisham hospital have been told that they will not be seen until the end of the financial year. In Liverpool, 30 acutely ill patients were left waiting in a hospital corridor after a ward was forced to close. Those are the everyday stories of our national health service during this time of winter crisis. The examples that my hon. Friends and I have given, however, are not—as Ministers try to claim—what patients should have to expect from the NHS in winter.
  The growth of bureaucracy has become a cancer in the operation of the national health service. According to the British Medical Association, since 1990 it has cost an extra £1.5 billion a year. That was entirely predictable, because every organisation has its own overheads. When organisations are competing, it is difficult to share, and each trust has its own director of staff, technology and

  825
  communications; but, if resources were allocated properly, the overheads could be shared, as they were in the past. The internal market is an extravagant and inefficient way of allocating resources in a national health service.
  Of all the fictitious slogans ever coined to mislead the public, none was more misleading than the one that proclaimed that the national health service was safe in Tory hands. What are the origins of the failure? First, there is the pace at which acute beds have been closed throughout the country, which has been described so clearly by my hon. Friends on the basis of their experience in different parts of the country, and which has given change such a bad name. For most people, change means less: it means that their local hospital will close, and that nothing will be provided in its place.
  Secondly, the competition between hospitals that has resulted from the internal market means that, instead of co-operating, hospitals have become what they have aptly been described as—city states at war with each other. Thirdly, there is the demoralisation of staff who must push paper and fill in forms rather than tending patients and performing operations. That demoralisation is driving doctors and nurses away from the national health service in numbers that begin to threaten the service itself. Let me make it clear that Opposition Members draw a clear distinction between the bureaucracy that, like bindweed, consumes the efficiency of our national health service, and the importance of skilled and effective management, to which we pay tribute.
  Fourthly, there is the failure to provide elderly people with support as part of community care. We know—any visit to any accident and emergency department over the past few weeks will have shown—that, overwhelmingly, the patients who are lying in bays waiting for beds are very elderly people. A ward sister said that the average age of 18 of the patients whom she had nursed in temporary beds on a recent Saturday night was 85.
  It would be asking too much of the Government to admit that they were wrong, but it is not too much to ask Conservative Members before they vote to think of their constituents. This winter's crisis was not inevitable, nor was the deterioration in standards of care. It was not like that before and it does not have to be like that in future. A few days ago, a senior nurse told me, "We simply did not have patients on trolleys in 1989."
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Lady has just said, "It was not like that before". She is right, because during the time of the Labour Government, 7 million people were treated each year. Now we treat 10 million patients a year. There are 55,000 more nurses and 20,000 more doctors than when Labour was in government, and they are all paid more. There are no NHS strikes to prevent people getting into hospital. The hon. Lady is right; it was not like that before.
  Ms Jowell: That intervention shows precisely the problem with Conservative Members. They paint a picture of the national health service that is unrecognisable to those who work in hospitals and to patients throughout the country who are waiting for treatment. As usual, Ministers have failed to notice, even less to accept,
  826
  the recent advice to London hospitals by inner-London chief executives whose study of the balance between planned and emergency admissions led them to recommend a bed occupancy rate of 85 per cent. instead of the 98 per cent. or more than 100 per cent. at which most hospitals are now required to operate under the strictures of competition.
  As today's King's Fund report makes clear, psychiatric hospitals are barely coping because in some cases bed occupancies are running at 125 per cent. It is called hot bedding. In paediatric intensive care, 70 per cent. bed occupancy is recommended to guarantee consistent levels of care. Apparently, there is a difference between the inevitable and the entirely predictable. Ministers believe in the inevitability of patients on trolleys, cancelled operations and the consequent despair, but apparently none of it is predictable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) spoke about the growth of the NHS as a safety net service. There is an intolerable and rising level of violence in accident and emergency units. For staff seeking to offer treatment, it is appalling and unforgivable that people in need of emergency treatment should attack those who are there to help them. However, that is what happens when the accident and emergency department becomes the safety net and the court of last resort.
  There is an alternative to the crisis. Even at this late stage in their life, let the Government admit that the internal market, or what Dr. Sandy Macara of the British Medical Association prefers to call the infernal market, has failed. Let them free hospitals to co-operate in delivering a public service rather than forcing them to compete as private businesses. That would create flexibility and allow hospitals to match beds and treatment to need. That is especially important at this time for the elderly who make up the majority of those who are queuing for beds.
  We shall shortly publish proposals for a recovery service that will bridge the gap between hospital and home for elderly people. I have no hope that the Government will accept our proposals, but I urge them to study them carefully during their leisure days. They will have plenty of them in opposition. We must stop the haemorrhaging of staff, particularly nurses, from the national health service.
  The Secretary of State said on the radio this morning that the national health service can never be perfect. Perhaps that is the standard that Conservative Members are prepared to settle for. The achievements are great, but they are great despite the Government rather than because of them.
  For the sake of staff and patients, we have attempted in this debate to puncture the Government's complacency and provide a glimpse of the difficult reality being faced by our hospitals throughout the country, but we have no hope that the Government will listen, and act on what they have heard. Rebuilding the national health service will come with a Labour Government after the next election.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): General elections are won on substance and there has been no substance from the Labour party on what will be one of the key battlegrounds of the general election whenever

  827
  it comes. Early in her speech, the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) mentioned co-operation, not competition. That is the only policy that the Labour party has to offer for health. It is a cliché, a mere slogan, which is as meaningless as the social contract of the 1970s. Anybody involved in the health service will understand that that is so.
  Many hon. Members have participated in the debate and I should like to deal with the detailed points they raised. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) was concerned about the Longbridge primary care centre in his constituency. Approval for funding of £2.5 million for that centre has now been forthcoming and we are awaiting planning permission, which is being sought. I hope that there will be rapid progress.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because I want to respond to all the points raised rather than enter into a debate on each of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke wisely and with care about the real world of the health service as she has experienced it in her constituency. Not for her the single unsubstantiated allegation: she had gone to considerable effort to find out what was going on in the hospitals in her constituency this winter of difficult pressure.
  What my hon. Friend told the House was probably typical of what is happening in many hospitals. She said that there was an excellent spirit among the staff and that many of them returned to work during periods of leave when other staff were ill. She talked about positive management of the problems in hospitals, with team work helping to solve the problems that many of them face when there is increased pressure, which we concede has occurred during this winter.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) introduced what I thought was an interesting approach, and the House may agree. He wanted to take politics out of the NHS. Whenever we hear that from a Liberal Democrat spokesman, we look to our constituencies to see whether the party is taking politics out of the NHS there. I thoroughly agree that the NHS should not be the political football that the Labour party tries to make it, but admonitions from the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we need a system of independent statistics, to be set up in a way that he did not entirely explain, are bizarre.
  My hon. Friends will be aware of the tactics of Liberal Democrats in their constituencies when it comes to presenting statistics. We have nearly all been subject to spoof surveys issued by the Liberal Democrats' campaigning department, announcing what the results of the survey should be before it has been carried out. At least I accept that the hon. Member for Dulwich probably made some telephone calls before she reached her conclusions. The party of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey does not even bother to do that.
  I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we are to hear any lessons about playing fair with the health service, perhaps he or those responsible for his party's operations will stop parliamentary candidates across the country
  828
  setting up false stories so that they can simply knock them down. I had an example of that in my constituency this week. The prospective Liberal parliamentary candidate set up a story about a closure, which was a complete myth and was not even being suggested. He then said that he would be the saviour to step in and solve the problem. It was all bogus. We need no lessons from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about independent statistics of that kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) was right to remind us of the history of the national health service and how far its roots go back beyond 1947–48. In an excellent speech, he made it perfectly clear that, as a Government, we had custody over these matters before the inception of the NHS, which has developed in our hands for far longer than it has been in the hands of the Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) seemed to support the spending plans of the British Medical Association. I hope that he has got that message through to his Front-Bench team. Many Opposition Members were keen to support every suggestion that extra spending should take place in the NHS—that was a common theme of the debate. I suggest that all those Opposition Members look to their Front-Bench spokesmen to find out whether the commitments that they expect to be honoured if Labour were ever elected would be honoured. On the basis of the stated policy of the Labour Front-Bench team, that would not happen.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South also referred to private finance initiative schemes. I can confirm that 32 schemes have been completed, at a value of £78.6 million. In spite of what the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) may have asked for in the Library, if the Library does not have the information, I will undertake to put it there.
  I hope that Opposition Members understand that the shilly-shallying of Opposition Front Benchers about their proposals for the PFI damages the prospects of building hospitals and facilities in each and every one of their constituencies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said something important about the changed structure of the NHS, which the Opposition are criticising. She said that our reforms have given us some facts about costs, so we have been able to save money. Labour has consistently voted against that. My hon. Friend is right to remind us of that fact; when the Labour party says, "Co-operation, not competition," and says that it believes in the purchaser-provider split, but not in the internal market, it is saying that it wants to avoid all the difficult decisions that have to be taken in health care if one is going to drive better-quality health care out of the system for every pound of the taxpayer's money. The two go hand in hand. Ask anyone in the national health service if that can be done entirely comfortably and one will be told that Labour's policies are an Alice-in-Wonderland world.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) asked about intensive care facilities. I can give him the figures for the north-west region, where 20 additional intensive care beds have opened in the past 18 months, bringing the regional total to 204. Six have been

  829
  commissioned this month. These have been funded from national challenge moneys announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just before the end of the year.
  Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: I have already said that I do not intend to give way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that that was part of an important strategy that he had put in place to tackle the winter problems that we knew we would be facing, and that is working extremely well.
  In addition, nine extra high-dependency beds have been opened this month, a further 11 are funded to open in the year beginning April 1997 and an additional intensive care bed is to open in Warrington general hospital in April, following discussions between the Warrington Hospital NHS trust and North Cheshire health authority. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that improvement in facilities in the area that he serves as a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my speech, I recognised the fact that that extra bed was being provided and it is wrong for the Minister to suggest that I did not do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) listed the achievements of the health service in his area. As he and I both know, that is a hard-pressed area for the health service in south London. I want to respond to his points.
  With changes in the health service, when a reordering of services is needed to meet new clinical demands and needs, there will always be an on-going debate about the right balance of provision. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no suggestion that the Government are following a rigid template towards a conclusion. Of course, as change takes place we consider its effect on individual services; the provision of a higher-quality service is the watchword that governs those developments.
  My hon. Friend also made a specific point about the chronically sick. He may care to note two points in that regard. First, the general improvements in primary care facilities in London as a whole, funded through the London implementation zone, are certainly helping to deal with the chronically sick. Secondly, my hon. Friend will understand and acknowledge that the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill, currently in another place and shortly to come to the House, provides excellent opportunities for primary carers to do exactly as he suggested, and bring together innovative services to deal with special problems such as the chronically sick.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made several points, many of which centred on funding. I shall ensure that his other points are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I want to respond to some of the funding points now. For 1997–98, £1.642 billion has been made available for health and
  830
  personal social services, providing an extra £56 million over the previous year. The hon. Gentleman may need to argue out the figures at a later stage, but I did not entirely recognise his interpretation, because they represent a 3.5 per cent. cash increase and a 1.5 per cent. increase allowing for inflation.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the comparison between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom—and England in particular. We are spending about 15 per cent. more per capita on health and social care in Northern Ireland than in England. There have been various difficulties, not least in the present year, but the figures speak for themselves and reaffirm the Government's intention to continue to honour our commitment to the health service, despite adverse circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) spoke about fundholding. He was right to speak of the benefits of a system that the Labour party would simply sweep away. I am delighted to endorse what he said. As he pointed out, I visited his constituency on one or two occasions, and I have seen the innovations that are taking place there, not least the modern cottage hospitals that are often manned by primary carers.
  The general practitioners' plans about which my hon. Friend spoke cannot be stifled by the Labour party—particularly because that party will never get into government—or by health authorities, because if, after the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill becomes law, GPs propose plans to rearrange primary care services in my hon. Friend's constituency, there will be an automatic right to bring them to the Secretary of State for approval as pilots.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) spoke about his constituents and funding. As I pointed out during the hon. Gentleman's speech, following three bids for special national funding, Nottingham health authority has been funded very generously in real terms for next year, receiving £500,000 of extra funding.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—until recently my parliamentary private secretary, but now able to participate in these debates—pointed out that in his constituency there are pilots in purchasing that he knows would be abolished by a Labour Government. He was right to point that out, because those pilots are providing great benefits for his constituents.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham asked about the trust business case. I can confirm that it was received by the NHS executive headquarters and by Her Majesty's Treasury in December 1996, and I hope that a decision to approve the full business case will be taken shortly. It is more likely to proceed with his active support than with the denigration that he tended to bring to the issue during the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) rightly pointed out that the Opposition were luxuriating in an idea of crisis. That was characteristic of their speeches, especially those of their Front-Bench spokesmen, which were devoid of policy content. My hon. Friend rightly pointed to good management initiatives in his constituency that were managing the pressure.
  I shall ensure that the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  831
  Not only the House but the country could reasonably have expected to hear in this debate what the Labour party would seriously propose for the health service in the coming general election campaign. The truth is that nobody now believes the Labour party on health. To every interest group, it peddles high expectations that are shot down by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Even when the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) dines with the private sector, no new treatment that is canvassed is entirely ruled out. He nods his head and says that all is possible. He and other Labour spokesmen dine with the private sector to give it false assurances that Labour would be no threat.
  I understand that the private sector has invested a considerable amount in Labour's shadow health team over the past two years. Just as one team goes out the door after pudding, a new one comes in for the first course of the next meal. In spite of all that, no one believes that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will deliver. Every solution to the problems of the NHS suggested by Opposition Members in this debate has implied more cash, which Labour is not prepared to pledge.
  Labour has made one firm pledge, which was alluded to by my hon. Friends. It pledged to abolish GP fundholding, but it could not even get that right. That policy is Labour's two-card trick. On almost the same day, Labour managed to get two headlines: "Labour set to scrap fundholding" in The Independent, and in Doctor magazine, "Labour promises to retain fundholding".
  On NHS savings, which will be the sole visible means of support for the health service under a Labour Government, we hear a variety of things. We hear that the savings will be £100 million and that it will all come from bureaucracy—but from where? Will it be health authorities, trusts, GP practices, or practice managers? Again, part of the problem is that it is a two-faced policy. A headline in This Week said, "Managers will not lose jobs in £100 million drive says Smith". The head of Unison, Bob Abberley, said that he was pleased about Labour's move away from attacking NHS managers. However, today Labour has attacked people who do a first-class job of delivering quality care in the NHS—and delivering it in a way that Labour would never have thought possible.
  We heard nothing of some of the plans that Labour used to trumpet. It used to talk about using part of the £100 million savings to reduce waiting times for cancer surgery. A British Medical Association spokesman—Labour is usually keen to talk about such people—said that cancer surgery was usually done pretty promptly and that it was not helpful to set zero waiting lists. A simple matter of its declared policy has turned out to be an own goal for Labour.
  At the centre of the debate lies the question of resources. Everyone in the health service understands that, although we can secure increased efficiency year on year, it is the commitment of the Government through our lifetime and beyond into the next Parliament to sustain spending on the NHS in real terms that is at the core of how our health service will grow. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen have not yet matched the Prime Minister's pledge to increase spending on health during the next Conservative Government year on year on year.
  832
  I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that no Labour delegation that has come to my office has not sought resources even greater than those that we are spending. The implication of every speech of Opposition Members has been that the Opposition will be satisfied only with far more spending. When the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East issues his strictures, he should look to the party behind him. There, every single one of them sits, political eunuchs one and all—all their spending parts neatly snipped away from them by the right hon. Gentleman. In a secret meeting at the weekend, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was not part of the magic circle.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: (Doncaster, North) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 319.

  Division No. 47]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'ty NE)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Church, Ms Judith

  Alton, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashton, Joseph

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beggs, Roy

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, A J

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blair, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Denham, John

  Burden, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  Byers, Stephen

  Dixon, Don

  Caborn, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eastham, Ken

  833

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Litherland, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Livingstone, Ken

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Foster, Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Foulkes, George

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fraser, John

  McAllion, John

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Gapes, Mike

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Garrett, John

  McCrea, Rev William

  George, Bruce

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gilbert, Dr John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKelvey, William

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McLeish, Henry

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Maclennan, Robert

  Graham, Thomas

  McMaster, Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Gunnell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Peter

  Mallon, Seamus

  Hall, Mike

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hanson, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug

  Maxton, John

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Meacher, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Michael, Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hoey, Kate

  Milburn, Alan

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Miller, Andrew

  Home Robertson, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hume, John

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Hutton, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ingram, Adam

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan

  Prescott, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  834

  Purchase, Ken

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Straw, Jack

  Radice, Giles

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rendel, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker, Jeff

  Trimble, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shore, Peter

  Watson, Mike

  Short, Clare

  Welsh, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steel, Sir David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Alexander, Richard

  Brooke, Peter

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ancram, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butterfill, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Paul

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Churchill, Mr

  Bates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coe, Sebastian

  Biffen, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Congdon, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cope, Sir John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Curry, David

  835

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Howard, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jopling, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Tom

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, Sir David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kynoch, George

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Legg, Barry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Freeman, Roger

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Luff, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  MacGregor, John

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Maclean, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorst, Sir John

  Major, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gummer, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hague, William

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawkins, Nick

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawksley, Warren

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Richard

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Tony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Horam, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  836

  Paice, James

  Stewart, Allan

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Streeter, Gary

  Patten, John

  Sumberg, David

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pawsey, James

  Sykes, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Renton, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Tredinnick, David

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

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Waldegrave, William

  Sackville, Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Willetts, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Young, Sir George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

  Stephen, Michael

  and

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  the House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 312.

  Division No. 48]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  837

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorst, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butler, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butterfill, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Gummer, John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hannam, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Cope, Sir John

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Couchman, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Horam, John

  Curry, David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Howard, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jopling, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Tom

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, Sir David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kynoch, George

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Legg, Barry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Leigh, Edward

  838

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Madel, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Spring, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Sproat, Iain

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanley, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stephen, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Mellor, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Merchant, Piers

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Newton, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Tredinnick, David

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Trend, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trotter, Neville

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaugnan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waldegrave, William

  Patten, John

  Walden, George

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pawsey, James

  Waller, Gary

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Portillo, Michael

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Redwood, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Renton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Richards, Rod

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Wilshire, David

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

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Young, Sir George

  Ryder, Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  839

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ainger, Nick

  Denham, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Dixon, Don

  Alton, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dowd, Jim

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashton, Joseph

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Austin-Walker, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Battle, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, A J

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Tony

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Berry, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Betts, Clive

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Tony

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Blunkett, David

  Galloway, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Gapes, Mike

  Boyes, Roland

  Garrett, John

  Bradley, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hain, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Church, Ms Judith

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Roy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

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

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hume, John

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  840

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan

  Prescott, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Randall, Stuart

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Terry

  Reid, Dr John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Litherland, Robert

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rogers, Allan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAllion, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCrea, Rev William

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGrady, Eddie

  Sheldon, Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Simpson, Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallon, Seamus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spellar, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steel, Sir David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Milburn, Alan

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Miller, Andrew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Timms, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Touhig, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Trimble, David

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Tyler, Paul

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Vaz, Keith

  Mudie, George

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Mullin, Chris

  Wallace, James

  Murphy, Paul

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Olner, Bill

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  841

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wilson, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the National Health Service is providing high quality care to more patients than ever before; congratulates the dedication and professionalism of the National Health Service's staff during the recent cold weather which has placed exceptional demands upon them; believes that the National Health Service requires a growing budget for patient care and therefore welcomes the Health Service Guarantee given by the Prime Minister to increase spending on the National Health Service in real terms in each of the next five years, including an extra £1.6 billion for patient care in 1997–98; and believes that this guarantee reinforces the Government's consistent record of investment in the National Health Service and its professional staff.

BSE
10.32 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3186), dated 18th December 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3184), dated 18th December 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
Dr. Strang: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be surprised to hear that the Opposition have tabled the prayer in order to debate this important subject, although we do not intend to vote against the selective slaughter programme.
The selective slaughter scheme that the House is debating tonight is part of the Florence agreement that the Prime Minister accepted in June. The House will recall that the Prime Minister said that the Florence agreement meant that all the conditions for lifting the beef export ban would be met by last October. However, today the beef ban is in place 100 per cent. and the Government have delayed progress for six months.
In September, the Government announced that they would not meet their side of the Florence agreement after all. Ministers gave various reasons for the delay, citing, first, the new scientific work available. However, as we pointed out at the time, any new scientific evidence simply meant that we could have a more effectively targeted selective slaughter scheme and certainly did not justify the Government's reneging on the Florence agreement.
The Minister also gave as an excuse the statement that the backlog in the Government's over-30-months scheme meant that there was not the abattoir capacity to begin a selective slaughter programme. I make the point that the enormous backlog—in October last year, it was estimated at 400,000 animals—was the Government's fault. They were responsible for the chaos. We appeal to the Government to ensure that the implementation of this slaughter scheme is operated considerably more efficiently and without all the problems that surrounded the OTMS.
Secondly, I do not accept that if the political will had been there, the Government could not have made some progress towards implementing the Florence agreement. The Minister admitted in December that no attempt had been made during the six-month delay even to identify the animals that were likely to be slaughtered under the selective slaughter programme. Valuable time was wasted.
The final reason that the Minister gave for the six months in limbo was that if we went ahead with our side of the Florence agreement, the European Union would not meet its side of the bargain and start to lift the beef ban. That is the most important question that the Minister must answer tonight. Now that the Government have done a U-turn on the Florence agreement, what hope can he offer

843
our beef industry, our farmers and our food industry that the European beef ban will be lifted? Does the Minister care to follow the Prime Minister's example of last June and give us a timetable for the lifting of the ban?
The Government have still not submitted the working paper to the European Commission regarding the lifting of the ban on certified herds. I trust that the Minister will enlighten us on that. Indeed, if Radio 4 was correct this morning, I trust that he will advise us that the formal submission will go ahead and that progress can be made so that we can at least achieve quickly the first step of allowing the export of beef from certified herds and then have the whole ban lifted.
It is a terrible day for our livestock industry when Parliament has to agree that thousands of productive animals are to be slaughtered. It is vital that the selective slaughter programme is carried out sensitively. Some farmers and herdsmen will deeply resent the fact that animals that have not reached the end of their working lives are to be compulsorily killed. The cattle, some of them high-value pedigree animals, will have been a source of great pride to the herdsmen and farmers involved.
The Ministry must adopt a flexible approach to minimise the damage to farm businesses, accommodating concerns such as the operation of the milk quota scheme, and seeking to ensure that any herd involved in the compulsory slaughter is treated in such a way that farm businesses do not lose out in terms of fulfilling the milk quota. There is also the quota for suckler cow herds. It would be wrong if businesses were penalised through a reduction in the suckler cow quota as a result of animals being slaughtered under the programme. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the flexibility will enable them to avoid not only a reduction in quota but losing out on any suckler cow premium payments as a result of the scheme.
The House will also be aware that there is concern about the definition that the Government are using to determine herd size. If more than 10 per cent. of the animals in a herd are to be slaughtered, the compensation is so much higher and a premium is payable. There is great concern, however, that on this occasion the Government have, unusually, chosen to include for the first time heifers in calf. That will reduce the number of herds that qualify, in terms of over 10 per cent. of the animals being taken.
The Minister will be aware of many of the concerns about which the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have written to us. I trust that he will address these in the course of the debate. I must also impress upon the Minister that the highest standards of animal welfare must be upheld during the implementation of the programme.
There is the issue of maternal transmission. The Minister will remember that the Oxford study paper, which was published by Roy Anderson and his colleagues, included an assumption of maternal transmission. Indeed, Roy Anderson and his colleagues advised that the most effective targeting scheme would make some allowance for such transmission, albeit on a small scale. Is it the Minister's intention that if there is no change in the present fairly inconclusive position, and bearing in mind the evidence that will become available in February or March, nothing will be built into the targeting to include maternal transmission? It would be
844
helpful if the Minister cast further light on the matter. As he knows, the Ministry has made it clear in its consultation document that a decision will be taken in February or March.
I know that many Members wish to speak in the debate. In conclusion, I remind the House that there can be no doubt that we would not be facing a crisis on such a scale had it not been for the fact that successive Conservative Governments throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s delayed in regulating to protect human and animal health. Above all, they failed abysmally to implement and enforce the regulations that they had put in place.
As I have said, it is a terrible day when the House has to agree to the slaughter of thousands of our cattle. However, the industry is facing a crisis on a huge scale.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: This is a short debate that will continue for only one and a half hours. To allow as many hon. Members to speak as possible, representing as they do the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and all political parties, I do not intend to give way.
This is a terrible day. I am sure that the House accepts, however, that we must sanction the slaughter of so many productive cattle. The industry is facing a crisis and the worldwide ban on the export of beef and beef imports is inflicting enormous damage and is costing thousands of jobs and damaging livelihoods. The only mechanism available to us to get the ban lifted is to implement the Florence agreement, and for that reason we believe that the Government are right to set about putting into effect the selective slaughter programme of that agreement.
10.42 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The House has discussed the selective cull on a number of occasions and is well acquainted with the issues. Furthermore, the time allocated for debate is short. Therefore, my intention is to be brief.
There are two statutory instruments before the House. The first is the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 and the second is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996.
The House will be aware that there is another order, the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1996, which provides the powers to restrict and slaughter animals. That order is not subject to parliamentary procedure, but was made available in draft to hon. Members last summer when we discussed the cull before the summer recess.
The selective cull compensation regulations, if I might so describe them for brevity, make provision for the enforcement of certain requirements of the relevant Commission regulation, which itself provides for European Union co-financing of the compensation. The requirements relate to the slaughter, treatment and disposal of animals subject to the cull. They are identical to those for the over-30-months scheme. These regulations create offences and specify penalties.
The other order is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996, which revokes and replaces the 1994 order. It contains new

845
provisions that prescribe the amount of compensation payable for animals slaughtered under the selective cull. The compensation arrangements are based on the proposals that we discussed last summer with farming organisations and others. In drawing up those compensation proposals, we have tried to strike a balance between reflecting the cost to the farmer and avoiding overcompensation. Although it has been difficult to strike that balance, I believe that we have got it about right.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on pressing ahead with the selective cull. I hope that our partners in Europe will respond on their part of the deal. I put it to him that, until the tracing arrangements for the cull have been fully completed, we will not know what the impact will be on particular herds. On compensation, will he consider sympathetically any cases that may emerge of herds that turn out to be particularly badly affected?
Mr. Hogg: I am about to give details of the compensation. I suspect that my hon. Friend has in mind the problems that may be experienced by the closed herd and the suckler cow herd. I shall deal with that in the next few moments.
I shall briefly summarise the compensation provisions. For male animals, compensation will be at the market value. For female animals, it will be 90 per cent. of the replacement value or the market value, whichever is the higher. That is in recognition of the point put to us by farming organisations last year that replacements may cost more than the present value of the animal to be replaced.
In addition, a top-up payment will be available for herds that lose more than 10 per cent. of their productive animals. That is designed to meet the concerns of farming organisations, by recognising the dislocation to the business during the re-establishment of the herds. It will be available to suckler herds as well as to dairy herds. The top-up is subject to a ceiling of £250 per animal, which reflects a maximum deemed value for top-up purposes of £1,000.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this saga has caused enormous anxiety and concern among farmers, including many in my constituency? Will he explain why he has adopted such an arbitrary and artificial definition of a herd, and why the top-up calculations are so restrictive?
Mr. Hogg: We have to define a herd for the purposes of the regulations. In defining a herd, we have taken into account the productive animals. That seems sensible. I suspect that what is on my hon. Friend's mind is the inclusion in the definition of in-calf heifers. If we were not to include in-calf heifers in the definition of a herd, the compensation payable to a farmer would depend on the exact moment that the veterinary experts visited the farm. That would create a difference between a farm where the heifers had not calved and a farm where they had calved. That disparity would be impossible to justify.
As to the basis of the top-up, in the end we must make a judgment. There are two elements to the compensation that we will pay. First, there is the full value for the beast itself; and then there is the top-up in respect of the
846
dislocation. We must strike a balance. I believe that we have struck it fairly, but clearly it is a matter on which people have a variety of views. I am persuaded that the balance is a fair one.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Surely the issue of in-calf heifers is just as complicated at one end of the scale as it is at the other. It is just as complicated for inspectors to adjudicate on whether the in-calf heifer is to be included as it is to decide whether the heifer has conceived or not. Does the Minister concede that it is most unusual—unprecedented, in fact—to include in-calf heifers in such an equation?
Mr. Hogg: There is much that is unprecedented in this matter, not least the slaughtering of healthy beasts, but we have done our best to be fair. My hon. Friend might consider this question: why should in-calf heifers not be included in the definition of a productive herd? I have had to consider the argument both ways, and I have concluded that it is fair to include in-calf heifers, for the reasons that I have given.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: I am going to make a little progress; then I will give way.
Mr. Marlow: It is on that point—
Mr. Hogg: I am going to make a little more progress; then I will give way.
I have been talking about the valuation for individual beasts, but I also mentioned the question of the top-up. Closed herds will receive one and a half times the normal top-up payments, which is intended to reflect the greater difficulties that are likely to be experienced by owners of such herds in obtaining replacement animals, and hence a longer period of disruption.
Mr. Marlow: May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and ask how it is possible to know whether a heifer is in calf or is about to return to service? Must a pregnancy test be carried out, or what?
In the case of pedigree breeding stock of high value, in terms of thousands of pounds, will farmers be compensated to the extent of that value?
Mr. Hogg: A distinction needs to be made between the compensation paid in respect of top-up, and the compensation paid in respect of the individual beast. For top-up there is a ceiling value of £1,000, which means that each animal can attract a payment not exceeding £250. Compensation for the beast itself, however, will be at full value as at the date of valuation, in accordance with the formula that I have already outlined. As for whether or not a heifer is in calf, that will be a matter for determination during the visit to the farm by the veterinary expert, as a result of the consultation that will take place between the farmer and the expert.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: I will make a little more progress; then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

847
We fully appreciate that, despite these measures, the coming months will be difficult for many of the farmers affected by the cull; so we will try to be as sensitive and flexible as possible in the general conduct of that cull. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked about that. The operation of the cull will be explained to and discussed with farmers, and veterinary officers will endeavour to keep them fully informed about discussions affecting their businesses.
It is clearly in our interests, and those of the industry as a whole, to complete the cull as rapidly as we can. Our aim is to complete it within six months, but, within that overall aim—
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: I will finish this section of my speech, and then give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
Within that overall aim, where it is reasonably possible, we shall try to take farmers' wishes into account when timing the slaughter on individual farms. For example, when a cow is in calf we may discuss with the farmer the possibility of delaying slaughter until it has calved, and the calf can properly be separated from its dam. If a farmer is to lose a large proportion of his herd, we could consider slaughtering in two groups rather than slaughtering all the cattle together.
Mr. Hardy: I may be wrong, but I suspect that the deep anxieties of dairy farmers may be more nearly met by these various arrangements than those of the beef producers, particularly the small ones. The Minister was kind enough to give way and allow me to make a similar point some months ago. Does he not appreciate that the smaller beef producer facing the "upper millstone" of the economic effect of the BSE crisis and the "lower millstone" of the disintensification policy that the Ministry is pursuing could threaten the smaller farmer, and imperil entry into, and maintenance of interest in, farming among such people? That itself would appear to contradict Government policy. Will the Minister re-examine the position of those smaller beef producers, to ensure that they are not ruined by the performances of the past year or so?
Mr. Hogg: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. Leaving aside payments made under the 30-months scheme, which have gone a long way towards underpinning the market, we have made available about £265 million in direct support of beef producers. Markets have recovered somewhat over the past few months, although I accept that they are at a lower level than they were before the crisis.
Looking forward, it is clear that there will have to be a change in farming practice. The consumer is expecting a change from the past and I suspect that there is an imbalance between production and consumption that will have to be addressed. As I have said, I do not take the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Over the holiday period, the Minister with responsibility for Scottish agriculture made an optimistic statement about
848
the prospects for the return of Scottish beef to European markets. He even estimated the percentage of the market that could perhaps be recaptured when that return was allowed. I have been trying to work out the basis for that optimism. Will the Minister give his estimate of the date on which that return might be realised, as the Prime Minister has done? Given the measures that have been put in place, on what date does the Minister expect Scottish beef to return to European markets?
Mr. Hogg: I shall shortly outline the steps that we intend to take with the European Commission to secure a relaxation of the ban. However, our optimism is based on the high quality of Scottish beef, a factor that is acknowledged throughout Europe.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Minister says that he expects the cull to be completed in approximately six months. Does he mean that in that time the cull and the disposal process of the slaughtered beasts will be completed, bearing it in mind that so far a mere 3.8 per cent. of those disposed of under the 30-months scheme have been finally incinerated?
Mr. Hogg: By the cull, I mean the slaughter. There are large quantities of beef, particularly as a result of the 30-months scheme, in cold storage and it will take a long time to dispose of that. When I mentioned six months, it was in relation to the slaughter programme and did not relate to the beef in cold storage plants.
I shall now deal with maternal transmission. What we are discussing does not include measures in relation to maternal transmission, if I may use the jargon. I hope that we shall have a clearer view in February or March about whether there is true maternal transmission. When we have that evidence, we will be better able to determine whether it would be right to seek to add to the numbers contemplated under the present arrangements to take account of potential maternal transmission. At this time I am unable to say whether we shall seek to extend the cull to reflect possible maternal transmission. That will depend on our assessment of the scientific evidence that I hope will be available in two or three months.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I should like to make some more progress.
Subject to the House agreeing the statutory instruments, I currently expect the first visits to farms in Great Britain to begin tracing cattle to take place in the next few days. The first visits will be to the natal herds—those in which BSE cattle were born. After that it will be a matter of tracing any animals that have moved from those herds. Our aim is to complete the process of tracing and culling the affected cohorts within six months. That is the matter on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) sought further clarification. The tracing of animals moved out of these cohorts might take a little longer.
As I have said, I recognise that the cull will create uncertainty and upheaval for many of those farmers affected, and that it represents an interference with their

849
private property. Nevertheless I commend it to the House because, without it, there is no prospect of any lifting of the export ban on United Kingdom beef. I am pleased to see that that point is now generally accepted by farming organisations and by my colleagues in the House, including the Opposition.
By implementing the cull, all five of the preconditions in the Florence agreement will be met and it will allow us to move to the second part of the agreement which sets out the procedures for a relaxation of the ban. We are ready with a proposal for a certified herds scheme to submit to the Commission. I anticipate submitting our proposals early next month. I must tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that it would be presumptuous of me to submit any proposals to the Commission before getting the clearance and approval of the House, which is what I am seeking and which I regard as a necessary precondition to the next step.
Our certified herds scheme would permit exports of meat and meat products from animals whose movements are fully documented and which could be certified as having no association with BSE. Once we have secured agreement on such exports, we shall aim to move on rapidly to other categories, such as animals born after a given date. In other words, we regard certified herds as being the first step in the relaxation of an unjustified ban on British beef and beef products.
Mr. Tom King: In seeking the approval of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the cost of the scheme to the British taxpayer? Am I right in thinking that it is an entirely a United Kingdom cost and does not involve any refund from the Community? On the terms that have been set out, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me what the Government are putting forward as funds to meet the cost of the scheme?
Mr. Hogg: The net cost is about £120 million. My right hon. Friend is not entirely right to say that there is no co-financing. There is co-financing to about 70 per cent. of market value. That does not take account of all the elements of compensation encompassed within the compensation scheme. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I talked about 70 per cent. of market value and he will recall what I said about top-up and about the fact that replacement value is one of the benchmarks for calculating compensation. The recovery is based on market value. As I have said, doing the best we can, the net cost will be about £120 million.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman's party already.
On the basis of my comments, I commend the statutory instruments to the House.
11.2 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I believe that all hon. Members would prefer not to have to debate this issue, but here we are. Many of us have to take a serious and sober attitude towards this issue as we represent many livestock farmers.
850
A farmer in Cornwall wrote to me yesterday saying:
"It is a very dangerous precedent to kill healthy animals on this basis, a thing the United Kingdom has never done."
I believe that that is the view of many hon. Members.
There are only two possible justifications for the action: first, that it will accelerate the eradication of BSE in the British beef herd and, secondly, that it will accelerate the reopening of the worldwide beef export opportunities. It must be on both counts that we test the statements made by the Minister today.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall the words of the Prime Minister on his return from Florence. He said:
"It is now up to us in this country—the farming and ancillary industries and the Government—to ensure that we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands.—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22.]
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be more specific about the timetable that he sees ahead of us as a result of the action that he is asking the House to take. To justify it, the Government have to believe that this scheme will accelerate both the eradication of BSE and the reopening of the export markets.
Some important questions were left unanswered. First, after Florence, why did Ministers not at least consult the industry so that they could move as quickly as possible as soon as the legislative process had been completed, so that we would not have these last-minute glitches? Six months have been lost during which such consultation could have taken place and uncertainty could have been removed. As it is, livestock farmers have found their business plans totally up in the air because they were not able to plan ahead.
Secondly, will the cull be managed in the same way as the over-30-months scheme? As yet, we have had no answer to that question. On 16 December, when the Minister made a statement on the subject, I asked him whether the accelerated cull would be by competitive tender, enabling the participation of all those slaughterhouses—they are represented by Members on both sides of the House—that have been squeezed out of the over-30-months cull and have lost out disastrously as a result. I was given no answer. When I raised that matter in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment on 18 December, the Leader of the House assured me that he would put that point to the Ministers responsible and get an answer, to ensure that there was no profiteering out of the new programme as there has been with the over-30-months scheme. I have had no answer as yet, nor have I heard one today.
Thirdly, what notice have Ministers taken of the response from the farming organisations to the Government's consultation document? The definitions in paragraph 11 are still incredibly vague, causing widespread concern. There is considerable concern at the apparent mismatch of cohort years with feeding groups. Do we yet know that the scheme is acceptable to the Commission, or are we passing something that is still a pig in a poke as far as acceptability in Brussels is concerned? Representations have been made to the Minister and copied to many other hon. Members from the Scottish National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the South-West National Farmers Union and individual livestock farmers, all of which have been constructive and positive—not negative

851
in the least, but they still have not had an adequate response in terms of the statutory instruments placed before us today.
On statutory instrument No. 3184, there has already been much discussion on both sides of the House about the definition of a herd. Clearly, the issue of in-calf heifers is incredibly important for closed herds. Since the Minister acknowledges that closed herds will have considerable difficulty in replacing without great cost, and that the dislocation to the management of those herds will make things extremely difficult, surely it must be important to establish what farmers and their representatives think is the best way to define a herd. As hon. Members have said, the new definition is totally unprecedented. There must be an extraordinary reason for including in-calf heifers in the way suggested. The Minister used the phrase "productive animals only". Why can we not stick with that definition? Similarly, in schedule 2, the way in which consequential loss is compensated is still causing considerable concern.
Suckler cow producers also have a major problem. We are receiving representations from all parts of the country. Surely it is essential for Ministers to allow producers to ghost those animals during the period when they are being retained for Buckler cow premium. Otherwise, it will cause a major problem for the cash flow of the enterprises concerned.
Similarly, flexibility is being quoted on all sides. The Minister says that he intends to be flexible, but there is nothing very flexible about the provisions of the two statutory instruments. It is difficult to foresee how the provisions can be extended to ensure that there is flexibility to assist farmers who have a particular difficulty.
We must consider, for example, the question of local milk supply, especially where there are producer-processors and producer-retailers, and most especially where there are speciality milks such as Channel Island or organic milk. There will be a major problem if that is not taken into account in compensation. There must be maximum flexibility in the timing of the way in which cattle are taken to cull.
Flexibility may be the Minister's watchword—I hope that it is—but there is no evidence so far, from our experience of the over-30-months cull or from what we have heard today, that flexibility will in fact be delivered. In its response to the consultation document, the National Farmers Union, summing up the position of most livestock farmers represented by hon. Members of all parties, said:
"The removal of healthy animals off farms will be traumatic. A sensitive approach will be needed throughout in order to secure the cooperation of producers, many of whom will be seeing a lifetime's breeding work disappear. Whilst the national benefits of the scheme are well understood, many producers are participating in the scheme with the utmost reluctance."
We should all recognise that everyone who takes part in the scheme will do so with great reluctance. It is not a scheme in which anyone would want to participate. In those circumstances, the unwilling participants, who are the victims and not the authors of the situation, have every right to expect from the Government—from every Minister and official—the maximum flexibility, sensibility and sensitivity to their needs.
11.11 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, this is an extremely disagreeable subject to have to debate, but if we do not debate it, the situation will go on for ever. The only reason for having the debate and for introducing a selective cull is to get the ban lifted. I should like a reassurance that the European Community will accept the method of selection that we use, and that it will not use it as an excuse and say that we should have a different method of selection.
Mr. Marlow: Moving the goalposts.
Mr. Marland: Exactly. We do not want the Community to move the goalposts. We want it to accept our method of selection and consider lifting the ban. There is no doubt that with the passage of time attitudes towards the selective cull have changed, and not only among farmers. The farmers of Gloucestershire—obviously the ones whom I know the best—were against the selective cull to start with, but now they are all in favour.
In the debate that we had in November on BSE, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave a cast-iron commitment that he would support a selective cull order of the type that we are debating today. To many of us, it does not come as much of a surprise that on this matter, as on so many others, the hon. Gentleman and the whole of his party have changed their minds. I well remember that when we discussed the export of live animals, the Labour party as a body came out against it; but when Labour was last in office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was in favour. The Labour party does one thing when it faces in one direction, but something completely different when it faces in the other.
It is also worth remembering that already more than a million cattle have been slaughtered under the scheme to try to eradicate BSE in this country and that the forecast for the selective cull is about 100,000. The answer to the question whether the Government will cope competently and implement the measures well is that of course they will. The Government can be relied on to learn from and take advantage of past experience, so we shall have a totally worry-free operation as we carry out the cull. If we do not go ahead with the selective cull, the ban on the export of British beef will never be lifted.
I and farmers in Gloucestershire favour the selective cull because it will restore confidence. I do not know about other Members with rural constituencies, but confidence in British beef among the beef eaters of Gloucestershire never went down. The beef sales of an independent butcher in Newent in my constituency, Andy Crease, never fell off. The favourite Sunday lunch in the Forest of Dean is still British beef, as it always was.
I hope that the implementation of the selective cull will restore the confidence of institutions such as schools, too many of which have banned British beef. I hope that McDonald's, the brand leader in the fast food industry, will quickly reintroduce British beef to its restaurants. I salute, as will other Conservative Members, the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign to rebuild confidence in British beef mince.
We want worldwide sales of British beef to take off again because the markets are still there. Foreigners want to buy our beef. [Interruption.] Yes, foreigners want to

853
buy British beef. I say that again in case there was a misunderstanding and the Labour party changes its mind again and decides to back British beef instead of continually chipping away at it and at the British agriculture industry.
Many months ago, I told the House that I had discovered at Gloucester market that there were outbreaks of BSE in France. Few believed me or my source of information at the market, but it is now widely recognised that BSE is endemic in France, Belgium and Holland. I wonder whether hon. Members know that the Russians and Egyptians have banned the import of beef from southern Ireland because there have been 70 BSE cases there in the past year. If they are going to ban the import of beef from Ireland, what does the European Community propose to do about the export of Irish beef?
Mr. Gill: Is it not terribly unsatisfactory that Russia can ban the importation of beef from five Irish counties but that the same beef can be exported to the United Kingdom, to the detriment of British cattle producers?
Mr. Marland: My hon. Friend has pinched my next point. I understand that the price of British beef has fallen by 5 per cent.—it may be more; he can correct me if I am wrong—as a result of the import of Irish beef.
On the detail of the slaughter, I join other hon. Members in urging my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that his Department should be as flexible as possible in the execution of the policy so as to minimise the losses of income that farmers will sustain. It should be sensitive to farmers' replacement plans. That is especially important for farmers who are carrying extra in-calf heifers on their farms to replace the stock that will be taken out by the cull.
Compensation should help farmers, not penalise them. I believe that it is wrong to regard in-calf heifers as being involved in establishing the herd. That is a serious departure from normal measurement practice, as only productive cattle are included in Government schemes, legislation and for taxation purposes. Why change that? The inclusion of in-calf heifers penalises farmers who seek to help themselves with replacements, especially as some of them may be carrying extra cattle on their farms.
It would be sensible to reconsider top-up payments, which are not available until at least 10 per cent. of the herd has been slaughtered. With the extra heifers that farmers are carrying on their farms, that could seriously disadvantage the very people whom we are seeking to help. Perhaps the top-up scheme should be on a sliding scale so that it is not cut and dried at 10 per cent. and there is some give in the system.
The setting of a maximum value on the compensation payable for a beast could further disadvantage those valuable pedigree herds, which, as other hon. Members have already said, may have been built up over the lifetime not only of the current owner but of his father. I hope that that matter will be reconsidered.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not like to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that he may have made a mistake. There are two elements in the compensation—compensation for the individual beast and the top-up.
854
There is neither ceiling nor cap on the compensation for the individual beast—full value will be paid. The cap applies only to the top-up formula.
Mr. Marland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for putting me right on that because that is a weight off my mind. If I made a mistake, I am quite happy to admit it. We want the farmers to co-operate with the scheme, some of which is voluntary. If we expect them to step forward and volunteer to participate in it, we must make the compensation scheme as fair as we possibly can.
As I said earlier, we want to get the ban lifted. To do that, we must know what the quid pro quo is from the European Union. Other hon. Members have mentioned the Florence agreement. It is true that before today's debate we had instigated five out of the six conditions that were laid down at Florence in order to get the ban lifted. As a result of today's measures, we shall instigate six out of six.
For a long time many of us have thought that the EU has had its own agenda: to inflict pain on UK farmers while letting others walk away without persuading them to take any steps to put the problem right. I have already cited the example of southern Ireland. I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take steps to ensure that there is no more duplicitous behaviour within the EU, and that the ban is lifted as soon as possible.
11.21 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: There is considerable interest in the debate because, although one understands that there is a political rather than a scientific imperative behind the need for the statutory instruments, it is generally accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the accelerated cull, regrettable though it is, must go ahead. That is why I believe that the House will not divide on the measures.
I shall briefly address the issues that are of most concern to the farming industry because I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak. The Minister will be aware of the considerable disquiet that has been expressed by many hon. Members about the definition of the herd. It is proposed to define it as including the replacement heifers in calf. That is contrary to accepted practice in all countries of the United Kingdom. Farmers believe that that has been done to reduce eligibility for the top-up payments. In view of the representations made tonight, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
The industry has obviously welcomed the fact that the Government have accepted the case for replacement value to be the basis of compensation for the cattle. After all, we are dealing with some of the most productive of the dairy cows in our herds, and they will be slaughtered when they are at their most productive capacity. Considerable disappointment has been expressed, however, at the fact that that compensation has been limited to 90 per cent. of their replacement value. I am sure that the Minister will have noted all the representations on that.
The way in which dislocation costs are calculated is also a matter of concern. I am anxious particularly about small dairy farmers—they may lose only one or two cows, but that may not represent 10 per cent. of their herds. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider whether an element of flexibility should be included in the system

855
because, proportionately, the small producer will lose substantially more than the larger producer in terms of their herds' productive capacity?
It is important that compensation is paid promptly, particularly for productive cattle, which must be replaced quickly. Many farmers had to wait a considerable time before they received their compensation under the over-30-months scheme, which had a considerable impact on their cash flow problems. Will the Minister give an assurance that the compensation payments under this scheme will be paid promptly, so that farmers can ensure that they have the money in their bank early enough to pay for the replacement of their stock? Will he also ensure that the farmers are made fully aware at an early stage of when the payments will be made?
My final point relates to the raising of the beef ban. As the Minister is aware, many of us have been persuaded of the necessity of the accelerated cull because of the prospect of the ban being lifted as a result. I understand what the Minister has been saying tonight and his reluctance to give us a firm date for raising the ban, but the industry is waiting for his views and the Government's views on that subject. He will understand that it is because of that prospect that farmers support the regulations on accelerated culling. In his winding-up speech, or in some other form, will the Minister make it clear that the lifting of the ban forms the basis of the statutory instruments?
11.25 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful for the chance to contribute briefly to the debate.
I do not believe that the dispute at the heart of the measures necessarily extends across the Floor of the House. All of us who represent fanning constituencies know only too well the unprecedented damage and turmoil that the beef industry has suffered over the past 10 months. Our dispute is with our European partners and, to a degree, with the European Commission.
I do not see myself as one of the most extreme Euro-sceptic Conservative Members. I have always tried to be measured in the comments that I make about Europe. The debate is the best opportunity that we have had for a long time to put on the record the fact that the farmers, the beef producers, of the United Kingdom—it is commendable that so many of our colleagues from Northern Ireland are present, and I shall be brief because I am sure that some of them want to contribute—have made great sacrifices over the BSE problem in the past 10 months, or even eight or nine years. It is high time that the rest of Europe recognised the sacrifice that has been made.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: And America.
Mr. Greenway: And America—the hon. Lady is right.
When the cull that we are debating tonight is completed, it will mean that 1.2 million animals will have been slaughtered. I cannot claim that there is a shred of scientific support for the slaughter of any one of them. They have all been slaughtered for political reasons because the European Union decided, in its infinite stupidity, to impose a ban on British beef as a result of the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
856
The European Union made a gross misjudgment. It judged that, because BSE might be seen as a problem confined to Britain, if British beef were banned, it would reassure consumers throughout the rest of continental Europe. Of course, the ban had the opposite effect. Every housewife or consumer, not just in Europe, but throughout the world, has concluded that if—it is still a big if—there is the prospect of humans contracting a brain disease as a result of eating beef, they should not buy it. All cases of Creuztfeldt-Jakob brain disease throughout the world cannot have occurred as a result of British beef. I do not believe that the link has been proved. The decision to ban British beef reinforced in the minds of consumers throughout Europe the idea that all beef may be harmful. For that reason, beef consumption throughout Europe has slumped. It is to the credit of our meat industry, our farmers and our consumers that consumption of beef in Britain has not fallen to the levels seen in other countries. That, combined with the massive financial support that the Government have given to the industry, means that we still have a beef industry for the future.
The European issue is exacerbated by an outrageously hypocritical draft report that was recently published by the European Parliament—the so-called Ortega report—and we need to examine carefully two issues relating to that. We understand that the report has been highly critical of the British Government's response to the BSE crisis and that there is also some criticism of the European Commission. In fairness to the Government—I remember many of the debates we had in the late 1980s, when I was first elected to Parliament—I must point out that they have been working one step at a time. Facts were not known and scientific advice emerged generally. We are now much clearer on what needs to be done to ensure that the beef on consumers' plates is safe.
With the benefit of all that hindsight, however, what has the European Parliament recommended should be done to protect consumers throughout mainland Europe? Precisely nothing—none of the measures that we have implemented to ensure that our beef is the safest in the world has been recommended by the Parliament for implementation in the rest of Europe. We are well on the way, not only to eradicating BSE from British herd, but to ensuring that, once eradicated, BSE does not return and that British beef on consumers' plates is the safest in the world, but I am gravely concerned about whether we can say the same about the rest of Europe.
It is acceptable to suggest that the incidence of BSE in Europe is not as high as it is in Britain, but I cannot understand why the rest of Europe continues to turn its back on the prudent measures that we have introduced in respect of specified bovine offals, meat and bonemeal. I am worried that, because of that, we shall see more evidence of BSE on the continent and that the worst of all worlds could befall our farmers—that we have the cull in order to get the European ban and the worldwide ban lifted, but that in two, three or four year's time, other countries will impose a ban on European beef because of the increase of the incidence of BSE in other member states.
I hope that I am wrong, but I want my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to take a message to the European Councils dealing with this matter: that we are prepared to ask our farmers to continue to make this sacrifice, but that we expect the other member states to deliver the goods—not only to lift the ban, but to

857
implement the necessary measures throughout Europe. It is no good saying that Britain will be free of BSE unless we can say that Europe is free of BSE.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the 20 minutes available for the remainder of the debate, four hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be successful.
11.33 pm
Mr. William Ross: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be as brief as is humanly possible.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) drew attention to the turmoil in the beef industry and on farms during the past year or so. We in this House would be remiss if we forgot all the other people who have lost their jobs or whose businesses have gone to the wall. We must not forget the tremendous misery that this whole affair has caused to the ordinary men and women who depended on a week's wages from the beef industry in one form or another. While I have every sympathy with the farmers, we should also remember the misery that has been suffered by others.
The statutory instruments deal with Great Britain, but the Minister will know that the corresponding orders affecting Northern Ireland passed into law about two weeks ago, even though they were laid on the same day, 18 December. I am curious to know why the orders for the whole of the United Kingdom were not dealt with on one day. Perhaps that has to do with our different legislation; but this is a UK-wide problem, so we should make every effort to deal with it uniformly.
Every farmer in the country will welcome this further step towards clearing up the BSE crisis in the UK, and will hope that the certified herds scheme will be acceptable to Europe. I trust that we will rapidly be able to clear up the remaining stock that may have come into contact with BSE. I am, however, still worried about the suckler herds. What protection will be offered to producers' claims for suckler cow premiums, for example? If those herds are decimated, the farmers concerned could lose out. Furthermore, could such producers be exempt from the quota usage rules for long enough to enable them to get back into full production? That may apply more to closed than to general herds, but the problem needs attention.
Has the problem of flagged holdings, as opposed to flagged animals, as yet been resolved? The matter urgently needs sorting out, but I am not sure that much progress has been made so far.
The Minister will understand that farmers' losses will be compounded by the changes in the green pound. I am told that another change in its value could be here in 50 days' time; it will cause more mayhem and another fall in the price of beef. If the price fell correspondingly in the butchers' shops and supermarkets, we might not mind so much.
858
Farmers are concerned when they hear advice to the effect that they must finish their animals a bit earlier. The plain truth is that Northern Ireland has long been engaged, with Government encouragement at every level, in producing large, heavy animals for the continental market. Any man who has ever reared cattle knows perfectly well that cattle first grow their bony frames and then put on the beef after that. It is impossible to finish a large-framed beast before it reaches a certain maturity. It is therefore ridiculous to believe that an animal bred to finish at 450 kg can be finished at 350 kg—it is nonsensical, but intervention weights keep dropping, and I should like to know what the Minister intends to do about that, to relieve the producers.
11.38 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his team will know only too well that, over the past year, it has been Dorset in particular and the west country in general that have been hardest hit by BSE. I wonder whether, six months ago, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would have liked to have been a Minister telling the farmers in north Cornwall or Dorset, "We have this enormous backlog of animals to deal with under the 30-months scheme, but of course I want to talk to you today about the continuing problem we will face once that is done."
In the past two debates in the House, I have quoted my county chairman, John Hoskin, who has been hit harder than almost anyone. Had the hon. Member for North Cornwall tried to approach John Hoskin not just in May, June or July but in August, September or October with such a farcical suggestion, I know exactly what the response would have been, and the hon. Gentleman would have caught the next train back to North Cornwall and probably moved on beyond there as well.
Over the past six months, my right hon. Friends have dealt with the most massive task that we have ever had. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made one point clear: this is the greatest crisis that we have faced since the last war, and we have dealt with it. People may criticise, but no one else could have done more than we have to deal with more than a million cattle in the time that we have done it. Let there be no more hypocrisy from the Opposition on that point.
We have lived up to our side of the bargain, and we are now doing what we ultimately promised, at the behest of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. They have all reluctantly come to accept that we must go that little extra mile. We are going that little extra mile; we shall complete our part of the Florence deal, and the ball will then be firmly in the court of our European partners.
There remains a big question. There was a time when I had stars in my eyes about the European Community and thought that, if it said that it would do something, it would do it. I am not so sure now. The ball is, however, in its court and, if it does not live up to the undertakings that it has given, we must face up to the fact that we must go it alone. We must make our own dispositions, not just for one or two years but up to 2001 and beyond.
When we debated the matter on 15 May with the hon. Member for North Cornwall and others, I said that, within those dispositions, if our European partners did not lift the

859
ban, we would have to consider taking action against them and say that, unless the beef that they produced was up to the standard and quality of ours and had the same safeguards, we would have to think about banning their beef and building up a fortress Britain in terms of beef. That is the last thing that we want, but the ball is in their court and they must play their part.
By 2001, BSE will be eradicated in this country, but will it be eradicated in Europe? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, we doubt that very much, so we must ensure that we have access to those world markets.
I thank my right hon. and Learned Friend the Minister and all those who played their part in bringing us to this point where we can do our final part. If the others do not live up to their side of the bargain, I simply say, "Let it be on their heads, not on ours."
11.42 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: In two short sentences, I should like to remind the House of the great calamity that BSE has been to the Northern Ireland farming community. Of a population of 1.5 million, 60,000 people representing 8 per cent. of the work force are engaged in the farming industry. Two thirds of the farms in Northern Ireland, small as they usually are, are involved in rearing cattle, and they produce a disproportionately high 12 per cent. of the entire UK herd. That is the enormity of the problem facing the Northern Ireland base industry—agriculture—which consists mainly of cattle rearing.
Those in the farming community generally welcomed the proposals for the selective cull and they want it implemented as quickly as possible so that they can re-enter the European market. Northern Ireland exports 75 per cent. of its meat, and 50 per cent. outside the United Kingdom.
I want to raise with the Minister one or two quick points for consideration, as they are causing concern to farmers in Northern Ireland. Although the farming industry in Northern Ireland accepts the reasoning behind the voluntary nature of the slaughter of the 1989–90 cohorts, and the fact that there is a problem given the traceability in Great Britain, nevertheless that traceability is total in Northern Ireland. Could not the slaughter of those 1989–90 cohorts be made compulsory in Northern Ireland? It could be carried out quickly and efficiently, thereby completing the five requirements of the Florence convention.
The other matter that farmers want the Government to address is the proposed method of counting herd size, which will be used to calculate the compensation top-up payments for the cull. We know that it differs from the method that is already in operation for the temporary reallocation of additional milk quota. The method used for calculating herd size for the temporary milk quota allocation should be used for the purpose of the cull as well.
The Ulster farmer is concerned that top-up payment is triggered only when the producer loses 10 per cent. of the herd. The Minister spoke about flexibility. It would be beneficial to the very small farmers, of whom Northern Ireland has a considerable number, if there was a tapering scale from 1 per cent. to 9 per cent. The flexibility offered by such a sliding scale would bring adequate and proportionate benefit to the very small farmer.
860
The certified herds scheme should recognise the part played by the selective cull as a step towards certification. To ensure that the scheme is of practical benefit, the farming community offers four proposals for consideration. First, as has been said, the flagging of herds should be introduced, instead of the flagging of farms. The flagging of herds occurs throughout Europe. The UK is the only country where farms are flagged. I understand that that is the result of an administrative slip-up at an earlier stage. It could be corrected virtually by the stroke of a pen, if that is done now.
Secondly, the certification of animals should replace the certification of herds. Thirdly, all animals born after 1 August 1996 should be eligible for the scheme, irrespective of the BSE status of the holding from which they originated. Fourthly, BSE-affected herds should be accepted into the certified herds scheme once they have completed an agreed restriction period of no more than six years.
In view of the time restrictions, I am grateful for the opportunity to make those points. I ask the Minister to consider them in the light of the flexibility that he said would be adopted. In recognition of the enormous problem that we have in Northern Ireland, where the industry is such a fundamental part of our economy, I ask him to address the issues sympathetically.
11.48 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not repeat the matters raised by my two colleagues. They have underscored what is in the mind of the farming community in Northern Ireland. As a Member of the European Parliament, let me tell the House that there is no promise from Europe that, if we do what we are doing tonight, we will receive a firm assurance that the ban will be raised.
The damnable report due next month will raise the matter to new heights. It has been purposely planned so to do by the political managers in Europe. There will be an attack on British beef and wild accusations which will reverberate throughout Europe and build an almost impassable wall.
I regret that my proposal in a previous debate was not adopted. Because Northern Ireland has the traceability scheme, we should have proposed that as a pilot scheme, carried out the cull according to the Florence terms in that part of the UK and awaited Europe's reaction. If Europe had said no, the Government would have known that their actions tonight would not evoke the response necessary.
Baroness Denton, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for agriculture and the economy, announced recently that Northern Ireland had weathered the BSE storm. It has done nothing of the sort. A review of the economy, which will be released this week, states that not only the farmers but the food processors, road hauliers, feed merchants and renderers of Northern Ireland will go under. We are facing the biggest crisis since world war two. If we do not find a way out, the agricultural sector—the basis of the entire Northern Ireland economy—will go under. I must be a prophet of doom tonight—I cannot be anything else—because we would be foolish to believe that, by taking this action tonight, we shall see the ban lifted in Europe. That will not happen.
11.50 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: Having listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am tempted to say that I agree with all that he said and to add nothing further. However, I must take this opportunity to proclaim my faith in British beef and in the British farming industry, particularly in so far as it affects my constituents.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider the question of compensation. I appreciate the fact that a huge amount of money has been spent supporting the beef and dairy industries in the past nine or 10 months, but will he ensure that payment is made under the scheme as speedily as possible? As other hon. Members have said, there is nothing worse than having to wait for one's money—especially in circumstances such as this.
I also draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the question of economic loss. I acknowledge that there will be almost 100 per cent. compensation for individual beasts, but I am concerned about the potential for tremendous economic loss with the top-up regime. For example, if 40 per cent. of a herd is culled, it will be almost impossible to return that herd to an economic basis—not least because the milking cows introduced into the herd will take some time to come on full stream and milk at the same rate as the cows they replaced. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that factor in mind.
I also ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep an eye on the nature of replacement beasts, especially if they come from abroad. We must be assured that the beasts that are introduced into the United Kingdom pass our stringent tests for quality. Can we be sure that they will not have been fed meat or bonemeal, which would cause a new schedule of disasters that we would face at our peril?
I hope that the brevity of my few short points will commend them to my right hon. and learned Friend.
11.53 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I preface my remarks with a tribute to the patience and tolerance displayed by the meat and livestock industry during the past 10 very difficult months. Those in the industry on either side of the farm gate—both those who have been compensated and those who have not—have adopted a most responsible view in a joint endeavour to see British beef once again assume the position that it rightfully deserves as the best in the world.
In July, I sponsored early-day motion 1180 which said, among other things, that there was no guarantee when the beef export ban would be lifted. I believe that those comments are equally true today. We are debating the issue tonight, not for scientific reasons or because of human or animal health considerations, but because of purely political considerations. Right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to that fact.
What I regret more than anything else in this whole sad business is that our Government, who up until 27 March last year steadfastly said that every action they took in respect of beef and the safety of food in the British Isles would be based on scientific evidence, have been driven because of force majeure from that position to the point
862
where today our every consideration, our every resolution, is dictated by the politics resulting from the fact that we are now subject to the vagaries of the European dimension. That is a matter of very great regret.
We will have needlessly slaughtered more than 1 million cattle to comply with this political imperative, in just the same way that, as I speak, fishermen at sea are dumping back into the sea thousands of fish that are perfectly saleable and could provide meals for housewives and their families; in the same way that, because of the failure of politicians to make the right decisions, 3,750,000 head of poultry have been killed to comply with the zoonoses orders when so many of us well know that the answer to that problem was to convince the British housewife, the cooks and the chefs in kitchens to cook their eggs and poultry correctly.
For how long can the animal kingdom tolerate this abuse, brought about by the failure of politicians to discharge their responsibilities properly and adequately rather than to blame the fowl of the air, the beast of the field and the fish in the sea for their own inadequacies?
Because of what we are doing tonight, which is serious and to a greater or lesser extent immoral, we must put the European Union on notice that, unless what we are doing tonight results in the ban being lifted, we can no longer tolerate this imposition.
Finally, I say one thing specifically to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. The inclusion of in-calf heifers in herds is unprecedented. It is without justification, and I do not think that the House has been convinced tonight by his explanation. I just hope that he will find some way in which to amend the statutory instrument to ensure that in-calf heifers are not included in the herds for compensation purposes.
11.58 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am conscious that the debate concludes in five minutes, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I answer many of the points briefly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hogg: I should have said, "With the permission of the House". I am so sorry.
I entirely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer). It was very important to complete the removal of the backlog under the over-30-months scheme before we embarked on the selective cull.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset, for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked whether there was a timetable for relaxing the ban. There is not. We will proceed as fast as we can, in stages, but I do not conceal from the House that this will be a difficult task and will take time. I do not wish to mislead anybody on that point.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I have only three minutes.
Various important points were made about the suckler cow premium, for example, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I am aware of the point, which relates to the culling of cattle during the retention

863
period. We take the view that the culling of cattle during that period is covered by the force majeure principle. We have already approached the Commission on that point. We have not had a concluded answer yet, but our arguments are strong, and I hope that we shall get a sympathetic response.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland), and others, asked whether the Commission was happy with the eradication plan as is. The House will remember that the plan as it was submitted at the time of the Florence agreement, was approved by the Standing Veterinary Committee and received the endorsement of the Commission. That does not mean that we will not face suggestions that we should extend the scheme to a cull based on maternal transmission in certain circumstances that I outlined to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
There will be tendering for the period after 1 April. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about prompt payments. Payments should be made within 21 days of slaughter or registration, whichever is the later. In reality, that will be 21 days from slaughter, and that is extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale talked about the temporary committee of inquiry. There is only a draft at this stage. Lord Plumb said properly that it is based on prejudice, not on evidence. I take the view that Ministers who are accountable to the House should not be summoned by the European Parliament simply because it is seeking to exercise a supervisory role over nation states. I regret that the Liberal Democrats appear to take a different view.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised an important point about the green pound and revaluation. The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been many devaluations over the past few years. He knows also that as regards 60 per cent. of the direct payments there is a freezing at current rates, which is worth about £200 million.
We have been criticised for not listening to the farmers. I do not believe that that is true. We adopted replacement value as a consequence of what was said to us. The second consultation paper on cohorts reflected the points made to us by the farming industry, as did our proposals on consequential loss.
864
My hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale and for West Gloucestershire made an important point about the absence of a specified bovine material regime in Europe, and they were entirely right to do so. The absence of such a regime is lamentable. The matter was considered at the December Council and Agriculture Ministers decided not to accept the Commission's recommendation. I regard that as a serious omission.
I take no pleasure in the statutory instrument, for all the points and reasons that have been advanced by other hon. Members. If we do not agree to it, however, there is no prospect of securing any relaxation of the ban. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
Question put and negatived.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Order of the House [6th November] shall be amended in paragraph (6), by leaving out the word 'Scotland' and inserting the words 'the Town Hall, Montrose'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.

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

  DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1997
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9372/96, the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1997, SEC(96)1677, the Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1997, PE252.724, the European Parliament's resolution on amendments and proposed modifications to the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1997, 11689/96 and 11690/96 on the Council's Decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1997, and the unnumbered explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 15th November relating to the Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1997; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

Pinderfields Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
12.2 am
Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about what I term my local hospital. Pinderfields hospital, which is located in my constituency, is an acute services general hospital, offering good and much needed services to the people of Wakefield. The hospital has wards in permanent buildings and temporary buildings. The temporary buildings were erected in the early 1940s to provide medical treatment for wounded personnel in the forces during the second world war.
On at least three occasions, programmes have been launched to replace the old outdated wards with new, modern wards with modern facilities. In the past 17 years, the Government have made a number of promises to build new premises. The most recent promise, of 1995–96, was made under the private finance initiative proposals. The publicity and hype about those proposals have now faded, due to the Government's policy on hospital mergers. I want to make it clear to the Minister that we do not need a merger, and that we want to develop our own Pinderfields hospital.
People who rely on Pinderfields for medical services keep asking when the new buildings will be ready. Perhaps I could extract a response from the Minister on that issue. The conditions under which nurses and staff work, and the premises in which patients receive treatment, would not be tolerated by many hon. Members, who would demand changes and improvements.
The hospital has recently been under tremendous pressure because of the number of referrals from general practitioners and the number of admissions through the accident and emergency unit. The local newspaper, the Wakefield Express, is a creditable newspaper with a creditable reporter. On 10 January, its headline read: "Hospital on brink of crisis". That referred to Pinderfields hospital. Health officials admitted that, had there been a major accident or incident in December or January, the hospital would have had to close its doors to all but the most urgent cases. Due to the dedication and sterling work of the staff at the hospital, it remained open and continued its good work.
Wakefield area health authority provided funding for extra beds to cope with the high demand. It opened a short-stay surgical ward at the nearby Clayton hospital to help to minimise the impact on waiting lists. That was sound judgment by the health authority.
My concern is heightened by the fact that the Wakefield area health authority is facing an overspend in its budget of about £5 million in the current year. It also has an over-commitment of almost £6 million on the expected budget allocation for 1997–98. The hospital is facing a financial crisis, and the stress on the staff due to the extra admissions and the heavy work load is exacerbated by the overspend on the budget and the cuts required to keep within budget. The staff are conscious of the fact that further economies must be made to keep within the budget provision.
There is no evidence of unjust spending. The hospital works within the Government's guidelines, and there are no surpluses. The problem is with the formula for the
866
allocation of resources, as set by the Department of Health. Pinderfields hospitals faces a deficit of £3 million in the current year, with a further debt of £3 million for the fixed costs of the transfer of neurosurgery from Pinderfields to Leeds later this year. Will the Minister explain how such a crazy situation arose? Pinderfields had a first-class neurosurgery unit, which provided a first-class service. It was a regional unit stationed at Pinderfields, but it was stolen from us and located in Leeds.
Why should we have to pay £3 million fixed costs? That will push the hospital budget further into deficit. Why should the purchasers of services from Pinderfields hospital pay the costs of the neurosurgery unit that no longer exists?
All the health agencies in Wakefield, including Wakefield and area health authority and the three trusts, are concerned about the funding formula applied by the Department of Health for health care in Wakefield. I readily accept that there is no perfect formula for allocating resources, but there are fairer formulae than the one that currently applies there. How, for instance, did the Minister arrive at his decision that the population in our area was falling, which was one of the reasons for reducing our resources? I do not consider that to be true.
Why are we penalised for being a low-paid, low-income area? That is how the formula applies in Wakefield and we are being told that, in some areas where incomes are higher, we do not need as much. Why should the fact that only 1.75 per cent. of our population consists of ethnic communities influence the allocation of resources?
Does the Minister take into account the elderly population who suffer from respiratory diseases? A mining community such as ours contains chronically sick people, and a significant number of children and adults are troubled by asthma. The Wakefield and Pontefract asthma group is committed to addressing the apparent gap in provision between hospital and community, and to developing closer collaboration between primary and secondary care.
Does not such suffering influence the Minister's decision on a formula for the allocation of resources? We need money to ensure that our hospitals have a respiratory consultant. Research shows that the recording of information with such a consultant is far more accurate and revealing than it is with a non-respiratory consultant.
Earlier, I referred to the transfer from Pinderfields of the neurosurgery unit, which used to generate an income of around £3 million a year, which helped to provide services at the hospital. I consider the loss of that £3 million a betrayal of Pinderfields and of my constituents.
Wakefield community health council raised the loss of revenue with the regional health authority, which promised that £1 million would be given in assistance, that a "regional centre of excellence" would be provided at Pinderfields and that an MIRI machine—which is a kind of scanner—would also be provided. None of those promises has been fulfilled. Mr. Ron Beneford, chairman of Wakefield community health council, agrees with me that all at Pinderfields hospital feel betrayed by the regional and national health authorities.
Will the Minister give me an assurance that the promises made to the community health council will be fulfilled? If we cannot rely on promises made in good

867
faith, how can we trust the people who made those promises and reneged on them—or the people in authority—in the future? The funding of health care and the formula for allocating resources are fundamental to Pinderfields hospital.
As I have said, there is a massive acute services deficit in the Wakefield area, yet it is reported that GP fundholders in the district have underspent by £7.6 million over the past three years. Why is primary health care in surplus, while secondary and acute health care are in crisis? The malaise is caused by crazy accounting.
Pinderfields hospital provides intensive care and high-dependency units, but additional demand could leave the hospital in difficulty. Last year, Wakefield health authority considered the provision of intensive care and high-dependency units at Pinderfields, and there was some investment in additional units. That investment had a serious impact on the health authority's budget. Will the Minister assist Wakefield health authority to cover the cost of the extra intensive care units that had to be provided?
I have spoken about promises. When the maternity hospital at Manygates in Wakefield was closed, a new maternity unit at Pinderfields was promised, but the promise was not fulfilled, and we again feel betrayed by the Government. My constituents use Pinderfields hospital and the staff there would like to be able to see to the needs of patients. One of my constituents who suffers from multiple sclerosis needs Interferon treatment. Pinderfields would like to treat that constituent with Interferon, but cannot do so because of the cost. My constituent tells me that patients in the south of England can get treatment without difficulty. That is another example of the north-south divide.
The treatment that the hospital can afford to give my constituent makes her feel worse, and she complains about the deterioration in her health because of what I have described. I have written to the Secretary of State for Health on this matter and received a response, but the issue has not been resolved.
Pinderfields hospital contains the Yorkshire regional spinal injuries unit and the famous burns unit. Because the neurosurgery unit is being stolen and taken to Leeds, there are fears that, if Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals are merged, we could lose two prestigious units and finish up with two cottage hospitals. That is another reason for objections to the proposed merger.
I have made the case for Pinderfields hospital to be given special consideration by the Minister. I seek fairness and justice, and that is not unreasonable.
12.18 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and to congratulate him on securing time to debate a subject that is linked to health services in Wakefield—Pinderfields hospital. This is the fifth time since January 1995 that we have had an opportunity to debate health services in Wakefield. Opposition Members certainly deserve full marks for persistence. I acknowledge that you also have an interest in this area, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, have an interest, because, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I went to school in Wakefield. I have known Pinderfields over many years, particularly when I was a teenager.
868
I have listened to the hon Member's concerns and the case that he has outlined against the proposed merger of the trusts at Pinderfields and in Pontefract. I am aware of the strong local feelings on the proposal. However, as I said in the Adjournment debate in November on the proposed merger of the two trusts, it seems that some hon. Members might be trying to link two separate issues—the management of the acute trusts at Pontefract and Pinderfields, and the delivery of services.
The consultation, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, ended last week, was on a proposal to merge two trusts, not on a proposal to change the health services in the Wakefield area.
The proposal that is under discussion in Wakefield, and in Pontefract, is a proposal to merge two trusts—or, to be more exact, to dissolve two trusts and create one new one. It is a proposal to change the management structure of NHS trusts in Wakefield, and it is not a proposal to change the services.
The responses to consultation on the merger proposal are now being considered by the NHS executive. It is likely to be referred to Ministers for consideration shortly. I must and will keep an open mind until the appropriate time. As I have said, I am aware of the strong local opposition to the proposal, including from local hon. Members and from the local community health councils. On the other hand, I am told that there is strong clinical support for a merger from local consultants and from general practitioners.
As I said in November, Wakefield health authority has announced that it will look again at its health strategy, and will hold a separate public consultation on that later this year.
The Secretary of State for Health is required to consult on proposals to establish new health trusts. There has now been a long consultation, lasting from July 1996 until the middle of this month, on the proposed merger of Pinderfields and Pontefract trusts. As soon as it was realised that more was needed to be done to fulfil the statutory requirements, Wakefield health authority was asked to consult on behalf of Secretary of State, and the consultation period was extended. That has meant that consultation has taken longer than might have otherwise been the case.
However, the extra consultation period will certainly not be wasted. All the views expressed during both periods of consultation have been passed to the NHS executive, and will ultimately be seen by Ministers. The extension has allowed local people almost double the usual time to express their views. There can be no doubt that the consultation period has been thorough.
Many factors need to be taken into account when considering a proposal such as this. We will carefully consider the adequacy of the consultation process and the views of local people, including those who took the time to sign a petition organised by Normanton town council and presented by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) recently. We will also look at the likely impact on effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility of the potential creation of a new trust. Any potential economies of scale will have to be balanced against any possible loss of patient choice.
I can assure hon. Members that this is most certainly not a fait accompli. We had a statutory responsibility to consult publicly, and we will weigh the results both fairly

869
and carefully. We will look closely at the interests and the health of the people of the Wakefield health authority area.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) have previously expressed concern about the results of past consultations. I understand their feelings on this subject. In particular, they have cited the investment in rehabilitation which the former Yorkshire regional health authority had planned to place in Wakefield, following agreement that neurosurgery should be concentrated in Leeds. There were good reasons for concentrating neurosurgery in Leeds, but I understand the way in which the hon. Member for Normanton expressed his feelings this evening.
We cannot turn the clock back to 1994, because the regional health authority was abolished in March of that year, almost three years ago. We live in a changing world, but it is also a fact that the NHS executive northern regional office has offered support in the form of research and development support worth around £50,000 for an academic development in rehabilitation medicine. So at least something will come to Wakefield out of that situation, which is now past and gone.
The hon. Gentleman also reported on the winter pressures that he has experienced in the local hospitals in the Wakefield area, particularly in Pinderfields hospital. Although the position is undoubtedly difficult at this time of year—it usually is—the trust is coping and has coped well. Indeed, I hear that some general practitioners have complimented it on its performance.
Some non-urgent elective admissions have had to be cancelled, but the Pinderfields hospitals trust chief executive has emphasised that the percentage is small—about 33 out of around 1,000 planned operations. Hospitals cancel operations occasionally, but they try to keep cancellations to as few as possible because a cancellation is undoubtedly extremely unfortunate for the patient concerned—it is very disappointing indeed. It is only right that emergency and urgent cases should have priority.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the trust has made six new beds available at its Clayton hospital to ease the pressure on Pinderfields. A similar thing has been happening throughout the country. Admissions units have been opened and additional beds made available where possible. I am glad that Pinderfields was able to make that effort to ease the pressure. I am sure that that sort of sensible management move has helped during this winter.
Once the proposal for a merger is decided, we can look at the management arrangements. Meanwhile, Pinderfields hospitals trust has an able acting chairman and an experienced acting chief executive, in a trust that has also recruited 25 new consultants since 1993—a considerable investment in the appropriate skilled health care for the area.
I also recognise that the Pinderfields hospitals trust is facing a complex set of interdependent issues. As I have said before, the ultimate goal is to ensure that sustainable, high-quality and cost-effective clinical services are provided with modern facilities. Although the consultation on the proposed merger and, separately, the configuration of health services will take time, those
870
processes should ensure that whatever solution emerges is based on informed debate among the public and the professions. I am committed to seeing that that happens.
The hon. Gentleman also, very fairly, raised the question of the finances of the health authority, the trust and the GP fundholding practices, which, as he knows, are extensive in the Wakefield area. I must point out that, in November, we announced that an additional £1.6 billion would be available to the health service next year to safeguard and improve patient care.
Hon. Members have criticised the funding for Wakefield, but the health authority is above its weighted capitation target. Despite that, it will receive an integrated revenue cash increase of £5.3 million next year, which is a real-terms increase of £2.3 million, or 1.6 per cent. Surely that is not a cause for complaint. Wakefield has done rather better than the average, despite the fact that it is over its capitation target.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about how that capitation target is made up, and was worried that the needs of Wakefield people were not taken into account. I acknowledge his interest in the problems of asthmatics and in the National Asthma Campaign. I was glad to hear about the activities of the Wakefield and Pontefract asthma group. I am sure that that is very relevant. I can well imagine the sort of respiratory diseases that are common in that area.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the formula, particularly next year, when it has been adjusted to take account of community health needs, including mental health, is more focused on need than it has ever been in its history. If anything, the sort of area in which Wakefield is situated will have gained from the reformulation of the formula for the cash handed out next year.
I also want to stress that the work on the formula is undertaken as a result of the effort and research by York university. It is independent, and considers objectively the population needs of areas such as Wakefield. It is as objective a measure as we can possibly make it. That is the basis on which the Wakefield health authority gets its money.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about the trust's finances. Certainly, I would not deny that there have been some problems over the finances—that has been the case for some time—but I am assured that the situation is not deteriorating but is, on the contrary, improving, and that a firm three-year plan is in place to resolve the problems. That will be affected by the merger, but it is none the less in hand to put things on a sound footing. There is no reason to believe that that sensible approach will not be successful.
The hon. Gentleman further expressed concern about the amount of money in the GP fundholding system and asked in effect whether it could in some way be transferred to help with the problems in the acute hospitals. My point about that is that it would essentially destroy the whole point of the GP fundholding system, which is that, where fundholders generate surpluses, they can put them back into improving primary care. They must be allowed to do that.

871
The health authority may hold those surplus funds for the moment, but they are in effect held in trust on behalf of the GP fundholders who generated them, and it is right that they should go back into primary care. We are, after all, talking about a primary care-led service.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Wakefield is at the cutting edge of a primary care-led system, because about 82 per cent. of the population are in 33 GP fundholding practices, and it is expected that that proportion will rise to nearly 100 per cent. by April this year. Wakefield is setting a trend in that area, which will be extremely good in the medium and long term for the health of people living there.
I should also point out that Pinderfields has benefited recently from considerable additional investment. For example, an advanced eye surgery unit was opened last year at a cost of £500,000. It is considered one of the best in Europe, and will certainly reduce waiting times for eye surgery.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister address the point about the historic debt from the transfer of
872
neurosurgery, which will cost the trust about £3 million, when the transfer of the service is not the trust's responsibility?
Mr. Horam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, in the transfer of the neurosurgical unit to Leeds, revenue is lost but so is cost; so that would not necessarily disadvantage Wakefield, considering the net position, balancing revenue and cost. However, the point was new to me, and I shall certainly investigate it and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that he is right: the situation is probably more balanced than he thinks.
The burns unit in Pinderfields is famous and, considering it alongside the other facilities that are available, the situation in Wakefield is extremely promising. The combination of primary development, in which Wakefield is well ahead of most other parts of—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Registration Act 1925
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's D>epartment when the report of the joint working party on the possible reform of the Land Registration Act 1925 will be finalised; and when it will be published. [12026]

  Mr. Streeter
  The joint working party hopes to complete its report in the early part of 1998 and it will be published shortly thereafter.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Sex Offenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his best estimate of the number of previously convicted child sex offenders who will not be required to register under the terms of the Sex Offenders Bill. [10755]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a highly complex matter. No precise estimate is available of the number requested. Officials are preparing a paper containing estimates of various categories of sex offender which I will send to the hon. Member. Copies of the paper will be placed in the Library.

  Domestic Burglaries
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of domestic burglaries in the London borough of Barnet during each of the last five years and the trend during 1996–97. [10777]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. No estimates for the trend for 1996–97 are available. However, the latest published recorded crime statistics relate to 12 months to June 1996 and the number of recorded domestic burglaries in Barnet for this period is 3,438. The available information for the last five calendar years is contained in the table; during this period there has been an 18 per cent. fall in the number of domestic burglaries in Barnet.

  Offences of domestic burglaries recorded in the London borough of Barnet, 1991–95:

  1991: 4,209

  1992: 4,425

  1993: 3,892

  1994: 2,532

  1995: 3,450

  Surveillance Operations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times per year he estimates that chief constables will exercise the powers granted to them in part III of the Police Bill; and if he will make a statement. [11236]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures are not held centrally on the number of authorisations. However, an exercise undertaken to inform debate on the Police Bill confirmed that, in 1995, there were approximately 2,100 chief officer authorisations by police and customs of intrusive surveillance operations in the United Kingdom.

  Lethal Toxicity Tests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which lethal toxicity tests other than the LD50 are included in the category, acute and sub-acute quantitative whole body lethal toxicity tests, in the 1990 to 1994 statistics on scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain. [11170]

  Mr. Sackville
  Any tests requiring a quantitative estimate of the lethal dose were included: LD50/LC50 tests, LD10/LC10 tests, fixed dose procedure tests and any other test methods—mainly sub-acute, repeat dose tests—considered to fall within the following definitions:(a) dose ranging or limit setting lethal toxicity tests (including indicator tests);
  (b) lethal toxicity tests (including tests in which a statistically valid quantitative result was required); and
  (c) non-lethal clinical sign toxicity tests.

  Criminal Conviction Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to refund the cost of obtaining criminal conviction certificates to individuals who are in receipt of a jobseekers's allowance; and what is the cost of obtaining such a certificate. [11061]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no such plans. We envisage that the cost of obtaining a criminal conviction certificate will be in the region of £5 to £6.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal conviction certificates he estimates will be issued annually if the Police Bill is enacted. [11059]

  Mr. Maclean
  Once the new system for criminal record checks is fully functioning, we estimate that up to 5 million criminal conviction certificates will be issued each year.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the production of criminal conviction certificates by motorists, when they renew their motor insurance, in order to demonstrate to insurers that they have not been convicted of offences which could be associated with road rage. [11060]

  Mr. Maclean
  Criminal conviction certificates will be available to individuals. It will be for them to decide whether to show a certificate to anyone who may request it.

  Damages and Ex Gratia Payments
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total sum paid out in damages and ex gratia payments by each police force in England for each of the last five years arising from litigation initiated against the police force and the legal costs incurred in respect of such claims. [11079]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to public funds for each of the next three financial years of(a) the Office of the Data Protection Registrar and (b) the Police Information Technology Organisation. [11237]

  Mr. Sackville
  The gross estimates are:

  (a) Office of the Data Protection Registrar:

  1997–98: £4 million

  1998–99: £4 million

  1999–2000: £4 million

  The implementation of the European Community directive on data protection by October 1998 may affect the figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  (b) Police Information Technology Organisation:

  1997–98: £51 million

  1998–99: £38 million

  1999–2000: £43 million

  Police Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the consistency of the provisions of the Police Bill, with United Kingdom obligations under the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement. [11235]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received representations from hon. Members of both Houses as well as members of the public and the legal profession. I believe that the provisions of the Police Bill are fully consistent with our obligations as signatories to the convention.

  Cheltenham Festival
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the inquiry established by the racing authorities into events at the Cheltenham festival in 1996 referred to in his answer of 26 March 1996,Official Report, column 495; and if he will make a statement. [11080]

  Mr. Sackville
  None

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11592]

  Mr. Howard
  Ministers of the Crown are able to make use of the child care facilities provided by their Department on the same basis as civil servants working for the Department.

  Taylor Inquiry
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library a list of those people whose statements were considered by the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster but who were unable to be called to give verbal evidence; [11429]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the list of the people who gave evidence to the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. [11322]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about the persons and organisations who gave or submitted evidence to the inquiry is contained in the appendices to the interim report, Cm 765, and the final report, Cm 962, of the inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the findings of the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. [11321]

  Mr. Maclean
  The final report of the inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor, Cm 962, was presented to Parliament in January 1990 and is available in the Library.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to, and in what circumstances he can, hold a public inquiry into a fire authority's fire cover provisions and proposals. [11335]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. and learned Friend's approval is required under section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947 when any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade is proposed. Under section 19(8) of that Act, he may, for the purposes of his functions under section 19, hold such public local inquiries as he thinks fit. He also has certain other powers under the Act to order public local inquiries in particular circumstances.

  Dronabinol
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations led him to reschedule dronabinol under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to allow it to be used medicinally. [11877]

  Mr. Sackville
  The amendment to permit the medical use of dronabinol reflected its rescheduling under the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances.

  The rescheduling under the United Nations conventions was based on advice from the World Health Organisation that dronabinol had been demonstrated to have a specific medical use as an anti-nausea drug for patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer.

  Casinos
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to implement his proposed changes to the permitted areas for casino operation. [11875]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  On 12 November, we issued revised proposals on expanding the list of casino permitted areas. The consultation period ends on 31 January.
  515
  In considering the responses, we will also wish to take account of local authority boundary changes in areas such as Teesside.

  We will make our final decisions when we have evaluated all the responses to the consultation.

  Cautions (Costs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average monthly cost of cautioning plus schemes in the last year for which figures are available; [10927]

  (2) what was the average cost of administering a caution in the last year for which figures are available. [10931]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 20 January 1997]: This information is not held centrally.

  CS Gas Trials
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which polices forces in England and Wales are involved in CS gas trials. [10853]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 20 January 1997]: The following forces participated in the CS spray trials which took place between 1 March and 31 August 1996:

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Cleveland Constabulary

  Dorset Police

  Durham Constabulary

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  Greater Manchester Police

  Kent Constabulary

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  Merseyside Police

  Metropolitan Police

  Northumbria Police

  North Yorkshire Police

  West Mercia Constabulary

  West Midlands Police

  West Yorkshire Police

  Sandwich Panels (Fire Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the fire safety implications of the presence of lightweight polymer-cored sandwich panels in the food processing industry and by which organisations this research has been carried out. [11262]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: The fire research and development group of the Home Office commissioned the Building Research Establishment to undertake an initial review of the fire safety of large insulated sandwich panels. Small-scale laboratory tests have been carried out to examine the ignitability and general fire behaviour of the panels with a view to more detailed and extensive tests being commissioned by the Department of the Environment.

  Indonesia (Police Training)
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what concerns were expressed by his Department in 1984 about the involvement of Bramshill police college in the national police management training bilateral aid project in Indonesia; and what information his Department had about the involvement of United Kingdom trained Indonesian policemen in human rights abuses following their training. [11644]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: Concerns expressed in 1984 about the project related to the possible involvement of Indonesian police officers in abuses of human rights in Indonesia; and the need to ensure that the normal work of the police staff college was not adversely affected by any one programme of overseas training. No information was available about the activities of Indonesian police officers following their training.

  Behaviourally Disturbed Young People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has evaluated into the correlation between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and juvenile crime; if he will make it his policy to ensure that juveniles convicted of more than three crimes should be assessed for ADHD by a medical practitioner competent in the pharmacological treatment of this condition; and if he will make a statement. [11539]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cambridge study of delinquent development, which was largely funded by the Home Office, found, among other results, that the incidence of hyperactivity, attention deficit and impulsivity at ages eight to 10 years independently predicted future juvenile convictions. However, the causes of juvenile delinquency are complex and wide ranging, and hyperactivity is only one of many. The Government have no plans to amend their policies in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association houses were(a) built, (b) acquired and (c) restored to use in each local authority in Northamptonshire, in each of the last five years. [11065]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information compiled by the Housing Corporation on housing association houses provided with Housing Corporation and local authority funding in Northamptonshire is as follows:

  Corby

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  52

  0

  0

  0

  52

  1992–93

  0

  24

  0

  1

  25

  1993–94

  28

  0

  0

  15

  43

  1994–95

  63

  0

  0

  2

  65

  517

  Corby

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  1995–96

  20

  0

  0

  1

  21

  Total

  163

  24

  0

  19

  206

  LA funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  63

  0

  0

  0

  63

  1995–96

  49

  35

  8

  0

  92

  Total

  112

  35

  8

  0

  155

  Daventry

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12

  1992–93

  20

  45

  0

  2

  67

  1993–94

  27

  0

  0

  2

  29

  1994–95

  48

  7

  0

  8

  63

  1995–96

  36

  0

  0

  7

  43

  Total

  143

  52

  0

  19

  214

  LA funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1994–95

  66

  0

  5

  0

  71

  1995–96

  87

  71

  5

  0

  163

  Total

  157

  71

  10

  0

  238

  East Northamptonshire

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  16

  36

  0

  0

  52

  1993–94

  12

  0

  0

  3

  15

  1994–95

  86

  21

  0

  3

  110

  1995–96

  50

  1

  0

  1

  52

  Total

  164

  58

  0

  7

  229

  LA funded

  1991–92

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  1992–93

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  1993–94

  10

  0

  0

  0

  10

  1994–95

  22

  0

  0

  0

  22

  1995–96

  11

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Total

  83

  0

  0

  0

  83

  Kettering

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  13

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1992–93

  98

  78

  0

  1

  177

  1993–94

  56

  0

  0

  2

  58

  1994–95

  41

  0

  0

  1

  42

  1995–96

  6

  2

  0

  4

  12

  Total

  214

  80

  0

  8

  302

  518

  Kettering

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  LA funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  23

  0

  0

  0

  23

  1994–95

  0

  21

  3

  0

  24

  1995–96

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  23

  21

  3

  0

  47

  Northampton

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  112

  60

  8

  6

  186

  1993–94

  25

  3

  37

  13

  78

  1994–95

  10

  2

  13

  22

  47

  1995–96

  172

  0

  48

  26

  246

  Total

  319

  65

  106

  67

  557

  LA funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  13

  6

  2

  0

  21

  1994–95

  20

  22

  25

  0

  67

  1995–96

  65

  2

  4

  0

  71

  Total

  98

  30

  31

  0

  159

  South Northamptonshire

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  18

  0

  2

  20

  1993–94

  10

  1

  0

  10

  21

  1994–95

  25

  0

  0

  17

  42

  1995–96

  65

  0

  0

  6

  71

  Total

  100

  19

  0

  35

  154

  LA funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  24

  0

  0

  0

  24

  1994–95

  0

  3

  3

  0

  6

  1995–96

  26

  5

  0

  0

  31

  Total

  50

  8

  3

  0

  61

  Wellingborough

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  Housing Corporation funded

  1991–92

  16

  0

  0

  0

  16

  1992–93

  0

  25

  0

  3

  28

  1993–94

  47

  0

  0

  8

  55

  1994–95

  10

  0

  0

  9

  19

  1995–96

  94

  0

  0

  6

  100

  Total

  167

  25

  0

  26

  218

  519

  Wellingborough

  New build

  Acquired

  Rehabilitated

  Do-it-yourself shared ownership

  Total

  LA funded

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1995–96

  50

  0

  0

  0

  50

  Total

  50

  0

  0

  0

  50

  Dwelling stock owned by local authorities at 1 April1

  Percentage change in stock April 1980 to Marck 1996

  Receipts from sales (net of discounts) April 1980 to March21996

  1980

  1996

  £ thousand

  Corby

  13,628

  7,346

  -46

  59,491

  Daventry2

  6,082

  3,883

  -36

  35,215

  East Northamptonshire

  6,047

  4,185

  -31

  26,412

  Kettering

  6,626

  4,751

  -28

  27,684

  Northampton4

  12,925

  15,503

  +20

  75,729

  South Northamptonshire

  5,745

  3,518

  -39

  32,538

  Wellingborough

  7,750

  5,717

  -26

  34,053

  1 Source: housing investment programme (HIP1) returns.

  2 Source: quarterly PI B returns; figures include receipts from
  voluntary sales as well as right to buy.

  3 The receipts figures exclude receipts between January and March 1987 which were not reported by the authority.

  4 The increase in Northampton's stock reflects the 6,400 dwellings that it acquired from Northampton new town in April 1985. Adding an estimate of the new towns stock in April 1980 would produce a fall over the period of around 25 per cent. The receipts figures exclude receipts between January and March 1986 which were not reported by the authority.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the
  housing waiting list, on 1 January, in each of the London borough council authorities; and if
  he will make a statement. [11313]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing waiting list at 1 April each year in their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns.

  The numbers reported as being on by London borough councils' lists at 1 April 1996 were as follows:

  London borough

  Number of households on the waiting list

  Camden

  6,873

  City of London

  822

  Hackney

  10,294

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,187

  Haringey

  3,793

  Islington

  8,485

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,725

  Lambeth

  13,081

  Lewisham

  11,766

  Newham

  8,975

  Southwark

  6,662

  Tower Hamlets

  6,718

  Wandsworth

  5,620

  Westminster

  3,674

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,679

  Barnet

  2,975

  Bexley

  3,863

  Brent

  9,503

  Bromley

  2,983

  Croydon

  5,496

  Ealing

  9,669

  Enfield

  3,557

  Greenwich

  6,445

  520
  Mr. Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings were owned by each district in Northamptonshire at the time that the right to buy was introduced; how many are owned at the latest date; what percentage that is of the original figure; and what receipts, net of discount, have been raised. [11067]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information is not available on stock numbers at the time of or receipts since the introduction of the right to buy—October 1980. The available data are set out in the table.

  London borough

  Number of households on the waiting list

  Harrow

  1,772

  Havering

  2,332

  Hillingdon

  3,387

  Hounslow

  6,232

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,901

  Merton

  3,737

  Redbridge

  1,903

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,071

  Sutton

  1,921

  Waltham Forest

  8,555

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each of the London boroughs on 1 January. [11314]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information is published on households accommodated under statutory homelessness provisions in a quarterly information bulletin, entitled "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985: England". The bulletin includes a table on homeless households temporarily accommodated and this identifies those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  In the Library are copies of the bulletin, the latest of which provides statistics for the third quarter of 1996.

  Revenue Support Grant (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the revenue support grant for the borough of Sunderland at current prices in each year since 1990. [11336]
  521
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows. The figures in real terms in 1995–96 prices have been rebased using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Year

  Revenue support grant (£ million)

  1990–91

  86.326

  1991–92

  82.395

  1992–93

  121.324

  1993–94

  117,333

  1994–95

  133.464

  1995–96

  126.283

  1996–97

  122.837

  1997–98

  1120.383

  1Provisional.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sections of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which are not in force. [11521]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not hold information centrally on those provisions of Acts which are not in force. However, the annex to Statutory Instrument No. 3056 of 28 November 1996 sets out the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which have been brought into force by commencement orders. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Granny Annexes (Council Tax)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 17 December to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin)Official Report, column 551, on changes to the payment of council tax for granny annexes, what estimate he has made of (a) the number of elderly and disabled people who will gain financially from the changes, (b) the number of households which will face a higher council tax banding following the changes and (c) the total fall in income for local councils from the changes; and what plans he has to compensate local councils for the fall in income. [11430]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We estimate that up to 50,000 dwellings will be removed from valuation lists as a result of this measure, with an offsetting one-band increase in

  Mid-year population estimates

  Local Authority

  June 1986

  June 1987

  June 1988

  June 1989

  June 1990

  June 1991

  June 1992

  June 1993

  June 1994

  Gateshead

  206,294

  205,653

  204,784

  204,132

  203,146

  203,078

  203,072

  202,850

  202,444

  Newcastle

  282,401

  283,719

  280,834

  278,825

  278,996

  278,161

  281,706

  285,310

  283,556

  North Tyneside

  194,338

  195,346

  195,809

  196,078

  195,548

  195,456

  195,166

  194,751

  194,082

  South Tyneside

  157,120

  156,575

  156,148

  156,314

  156,638

  157,210

  157,290

  157,200

  156,665

  Sunderland

  297,815

  297,156

  296,188

  296,360

  296,310

  296,446

  297,147

  297,806

  297,226

  Source:

  NOMIS.

  Household projections (Mid-year estimates)

  11981

  11991

  11992

  11993

  21994

  21995

  11996

  12016

  Gateshead

  81,000

  84,000

  84,000

  85,000

  85,000

  86,000

  86,000

  94,000

  Newcastle

  110,000

  117,000

  119,000

  121,000

  120,500

  120,600

  123,000

  137,000

  North Tyneside

  77,000

  82,000

  83,000

  83,000

  83,400

  84,100

  84,000

  89,000

  522
  banding in around one quarter of cases. This would reduce the tax yield by around £15 million to £20 million, or less than 0.2 per cent. We do not expect the impact on local authorities to be significant. None the less, future rate support grant settlements will take into account the change in yield.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11595]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Ministers' eligibility to use available child care facilities supported by my Department could be considered on the basis of value for money, in accordance with the Department's delegated responsibility for establishing and maintaining such schemes.

  Household Estimates (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the mid-year population and household estimates for each district in Tyne and Wear for each year from 1986 to 1996; and how changes in these estimates have affected the projections for 2016. [11613]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Mid-year population estimates for 1986 to 1994—the latest data available from stated sources—are reproduced in the following tables. Population projections for 1997 and 2016 are also given together with projected change between those two dates.

  Latest household projections data collated are from 1991. These data are similarly reproduced in the following tables. Projections data for 1981 and 2016 are also included. Projected change between 1996 and 2016 is illustrated.

  Projected population (1993 Base)

  Percentage

  Local Authority

  June 1997

  June 2016

  Change

  Percentage change

  Gateshead

  201,978

  195,333

  -6,645

  -3

  Newcastle

  282,496

  280,645

  -1,851

  -1

  North Tyneside

  193,565

  188,112

  -5,453

  -3

  South Tyneside

  158,483

  160,549

  2,065

  1

  Sunderland

  298,128

  297,689

  -439

  0

  Source:

  NOMIS (Crown Copyright Reserved).
  523

  Household projections (Mid-year estimates)

  11981

  11991

  11992

  11993

  21994

  21995

  11996

  12016

  South Tyneside

  62,000

  65,000

  65,000

  66,000

  65,800

  66,200

  67,000

  76,000

  Sunderland

  108,000

  117,000

  118,000

  119,000

  119,500

  119,600

  121,000

  137,000

  Source:

  1 Figures as appear in "Projection of Households in England to 2016 (HMSO)". Figures are rounded to nearest thousand.

  2 Figures as provided by DOE (housing data statistics).

  1996

  2016

  Change

  Percentage change

  Gateshead

  86,000

  94,000

  8,000

  9.3

  Newcastle

  123,000

  137,000

  14,000

  11.4

  North Tyneside

  84,000

  89,000

  5,000

  5.9

  South Tyneside

  67,000

  76,000

  9,000

  13.4

  Sunderland

  121,000

  137,000

  16,000

  13.2

  Abandoned Mines
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications his Department has had with the Environment Agency in respect of the implementation of plans to clean up contaminated waters from abandoned mines. [12097]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My officials are in regular contact with the Environment Agency regarding proposals for remedial work and the remediation of sites where minewater pollution has a serious impact on the aquatic environment.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the Environment Agency to update the report prepared by the National Rivers Authority in 1993 on the pollution of water in abandoned mines. [12066]

  Mr. Jones
  There is no specific requirement for the Environment Agency to update its report. However, the agency is constantly collecting new information on water pollution from abandoned mines, and it may wish to issue reports or other communications from time to time.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department have held with the Coal Authority since 31 October 1994 in regard to pollution and decontamination of abandoned coal mines. [12067]

  Mr. Jones
  Ministers in my Department have held no meetings with the Coal Authority since it was set up. Officials have held a small number of meetings to discuss issues related to water pollution from abandoned coal mines, and they continue to maintain regular contact with the authority. The Environment Agency works closely with the Coal Authority and has held seven meetings in the period. These have dealt with the production and review of a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations and, more recently, joint work to identify sites affected by discharges form abandoned coal mines where remediation is necessary and feasible.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what visits(a) he and (b) officials of his Department have made to assess the levels of pollution in abandoned mine workings during his term as Secretary of State. [12068]
  524
  Mr. Jones
  The assessment of water pollution in abandoned mines is a responsibility of the Environment Agency, which maintains an extensive monitoring programme for that purpose. Officials of the Department of the Environment have made a small number of informative visits to sites affected by minewater pollution, and maintain regular contact with the Environment Agency on this issue.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department collates on(a) the levels of contamination and (b) the methods adopted to clean up polluted water from abandoned mines (i) previously in private ownership and (ii) currently in private ownership. [12069]

  Mr. Jones
  The Environment Agency is responsible for the collection and collation of information regarding water pollution from abandoned mines and it collects all relevant data on water chemistry and stream biology. Discharges from abandoned mines are highly site specific but, in general, the parameters recorded are pH, dissolved oxygen, total and dissolved iron, other metals, salinity, flow and biological diversity. Where minewater pollution is being treated, the methods vary according to the nature of the discharge and of the site itself. The current or former ownership of the abandoned mine is not relevant to the approach adopted.

  Isocyanate Compounds
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to review the safety precautions for the use of isocyanate compounds; if he will instruct them to(a) review the use of isocyanate by Scottish Power employees in the depots in (i) Kilmarnock and (ii) Motherwell and (b) evaluate other recent experience and research; and if he will make a statement. [11927]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Control of exposure to isocyanates is regulated by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. These regulations are kept under constant review by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE also produces guidance on implementing these regulations with respect to isocyanates.

  In 1993 the HSE investigated a report of occupational asthma in an employee of Scottish Power in Motherwell. As a result, controls by Scottish Power were improved. A review of those controls at both the Kilmarnock and Motherwell depots by the HSE is currently under way.

  The HSE's enforcement activities and links to industry and trade unions ensure that any new evidence and research is identified and addressed for any regulatory implication.

  Satellites
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce the outcome of his recent consultation exercise on possible changes to the permitted development rights for satellite and other antennas. [12303]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Last year, we consulted on some possible minor amendments to the present rights to install satellite dishes and other antennas without the need to submit a planning application. The changes were intended to keep the legislation up to date with developments in telecommunications. They attracted considerable support and we have therefore decided to proceed with them.

  The main change is bringing the permitted size of satellite dishes in the south and east of the country into line with the rest of the country. The slight increase in permitted dish size in the south and east will then enable householders in these areas to access more readily the choice of satellite channels currently enjoyed by the rest of the UK and allow the different satellite TV companies to compete on a more equal basis.

  We will also be giving a new freedom to telephone users who wish to change to a radio fixed-link service enabling them to install a small antenna on their building—or two in the case of a large building. This will widen the choice of telephone services available to the consumer. And finally, there will be a new flexibility to install a satellite antenna rather than a terrestrial antenna on large buildings, helping businesses to communicate more easily.

  These changes will increase consumer choice and promote further competition in the telecommunications industry, but will have a minimal impact on the appearance of towns and the countryside. Planning applications will continue to be required in a range of circumstances in conservation areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. We are now preparing the necessary order.

SCOTLAND

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what access(a) the public and (b) tenants are allowed to the minutes of housing associations; and if copies of those minutes are provided to Scottish Homes. [11330]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The publication and circulation of minutes are matters for individual housing associations and practice varies between associations. As the regulating body for housing associations, Scottish Homes has access to minutes of association meetings and requires associations to provide copies of these for all meetings held in the six months prior to a monitoring visit.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers Scottish Homes has to monitor the operation of housing associations in Scotland. [11331]
  526
  Mr. Robertson
  The Housing Associations Act 1985 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 give Scottish Homes a range of regulatory responsibilities, including the maintenance of a register of housing associations and the supervision and control of registered housing associations in Scotland. Scottish Homes publishes an annual report of its monitoring activities.

  Irvine Housing Association
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request the registration and monitoring section in Scottish Homes to investigate delays by the Irvine Housing Association in giving its tenants membership of the association. [11703]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Responsibility for the supervision and control of registered housing associations in Scotland lies with Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Mr. John Ward, to investigate the matter and respond directly to the hon. Member.

  I have asked to see a copy of the report.

  Science Centre
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had concerning plans for the establishment of a Scottish science centre; and if he will make a statement. [11659]

  Mr. George Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend and I have had various discussions on this matter. The Scottish Science Trust and the associated network of science centres are the subject of applications for funding by the Millennium Commission. Decisions on those applications are a matter for the commission.

  Prior Options Review
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the(a) profit-related pay and (b) bonus given to the chief executive of each Government research institution currently being considered under the prior options review in 1996 and 1995; and if he will make a statement. [11941]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Prior option reviews were conducted on the five Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes—SABRIs—the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency—SASA—and the Scottish Office Fisheries Research Services—FRS.

  The SABRIs are non-profit-making organisations. The pay of the directors is determined within the terms and conditions of service applying to staff at the institutes. Pay is performance-related but bonuses are not paid.

  The SASA and FRS are parts of the Scottish Office. The pay of the directors of each is determined within the standard pay arrangements for the senior civil service and is neither profit-related nor in the form of a bonus.

  East Ayrshire Community Hospital
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the alternative proposals for the funding of the East Ayrshire community hospital; what discussions have taken place between his Department and officers of the Ayrshire and Arran Community NHS trust about the plans; what
  527
  recommendations have been made to him by the trust; when he expects to decide on the proposals; and if he will make a statement. [11926]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Further negotiations between the trust and the preferred private finance initiative bidder are currently under way and are covered by commercial confidentiality. Once the outcome of the negotiations is known an announcement will be made.

  Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will link the home fee status classification of students and the rules of eligibility that may be adopted for awards specified in the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983, as amended, to those who are settled in the United Kingdom under the immigration laws. [12351]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Revised Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations will be laid before Parliament to consolidate the 1983 regulations. An amendment will be laid thereafter to the consolidated regulations to add a requirement of being settled in the United Kingdom under the immigration laws to the existing criteria for establishing a "relevant connection" for the purpose of student fee classifications by institutions and to the rules of candidate eligibility for certain awards which may be adopted under the regulations.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Nelson
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if her Department will assess the advantages of making millennium fund money available for preparations for the commemoration of the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson. [10866]

  Northamptonshire awards

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Award amount

  UK constituency

  Sports

  20 November 1996

  Welland Gliding Club

  4,000.00

  Corby

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Corby Mind

  50,000.00

  Corby

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Duston Pensioners Voice

  1,263.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  18 June 1996

  Bringtons and Nobottle Cricket Club

  2,500.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  5 September 1996

  Long Buckby Cricket Club

  3,563.00

  Daventry

  Heritage

  14 February 1996

  Crick Church Bells Restoration Fund

  7,000.00

  Daventry

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Deanshanger Day Centre

  7,086.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  8 August 1995

  Long Buckby Community Centre

  7,200.00

  Daventry

  Heritage

  12 December 1996

  Colwyn Preservation Society

  17,000.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  15 May 1995

  Potterspury Sports and Social Club

  23,300.00

  Daventry

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Age Concern Daycentre Group, Weedon

  31,000.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  16 May 1995

  Moulton Football Club

  35,067.00

  Daventry

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Wheels To Adventure

  43,800.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  10 October 1996

  Brightwell Recreation Ground Association

  50,485.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  20 June 1996

  Brackley Tennis Club

  91,000.00

  Daventry

  Sports

  3 July 1995

  Daventry District Council

  614,000.00

  Daventry

  Heritage

  12 December 1996

  Sulgrave Manor Board

  745,000.00

  Daventry

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Accommodation Concern

  2,200.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  1st Burton Latimer Scout Group

  6,780.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Kettering Welfare Rights Advisory Service

  7,245.00

  Kettering

  528
  Miss Virginia Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission is currently inviting proposals for activities which will unite and inspire people throughout the United Kingdom in celebration of the millennium. A proposal to commemorate the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson could be made in that context, although it would be for the commission to determine whether such a scheme was appropriate for its funding. It may also be possible for such a proposal to be put to the heritage lottery fund, which would assess it against its published criteria.

  Greenwich Exhibition
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement in her capacity as Secretary of State on the role of public finance and management in the proposed London exhibition at Greenwich in 2000. [10766]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The exhibition at Greenwich will be a national exhibition, sited in London, forming the focal point of a national festival which will last throughout the year 2000. It will be funded by a combination of a national lottery grant from the Millennium Commission, private sector sponsorship and revenue generated by the exhibition itself.

  The precise structure of the operating company which will run the exhibition is being finalised but the commission will, through the terms and conditions of grant, ensure that the operating company delivers a superb exhibition which represents value for money. Expenditure of grant from the Millennium Commission is subject to the financial directions which I have issued to it.

  National Lottery (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list each national lottery award made to each constituency in Northamptonshire since 20 March 1995. [11194]

  Mr. Sproat
  There have been 80 awards totalling £8,864,423 to projects in Northamptonshire. A breakdown of awards by constituency, up to the end of December 1996, is shown in the following table:
  529

  Northamptonshire awards

  Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Award amount

  UK constituency

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Scaldwell Sports Club

  9,871.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Geddington Youth Club

  12,000.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Kettering Mind

  22,046.00

  Kettering

  Sports

  9 January 1996

  Northampton Sailing Club

  35,000.00

  Kettering

  Arts

  13 September 1995

  Moulton Players

  60,000.00

  Kettering

  Sports

  5 September 1996

  Clipston Playing Field Trust

  71,500.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Kettering Youth Information

  92,098.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Kettering Volunteer Bureau

  107,032.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Teamwork Workbridge

  230,000.00

  Kettering

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Abington and Kingsley Pensioners Voice

  500.00

  Northampton North

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Northampton Active Group

  5,000.00

  Northampton North

  Sports

  10 October 1995

  Fernie Fields Sports Club (VANAID FC)

  10,188.00

  Northampton North

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Northamptonshire Association of Youth Clubs

  20,081.00

  Northampton North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Be Positive

  90,000.00

  Northampton North

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Northamptonshire Society For Autism

  103,050.00

  Northampton North

  Sports

  8 August 1995

  Weston Favell Upper School

  553,750.00

  Northampton North

  Sports

  10 May 1996

  Northamptonshire Association of Youth Clubs

  714,825.00

  Northampton North

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Hartwell Playgroup

  500.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Rural Support Group

  2,195.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Women's Health Information And Support Centre

  2,500.00

  Northampton South

  Arts

  17 May 1995

  Northamptonshire County Council

  7,500.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  10 October 1996

  Rushmere Tennis Club (formerly Nationwide)

  7,800.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  2 July 1996

  Harpole Bowls Club

  18,650.00

  Northampton South

  Heritage

  20 December 1995

  St. Andrews, Little Billing

  19,000.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Northampton and District Citizens Advice Bureau

  24,354.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Off The Hook

  25,040.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Care And Repair

  26,795.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Northampton Physically Handicapped And Able-bodied Club

  28,600.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Northamptonshire Victims Support Scheme

  28,820.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  16 May 1995

  Kislingbury Bowls Club

  42,500.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Lord Hesketh Youth Centre

  46,933.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Northampton Womens Aid

  52,488.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Northampton Youth Counselling And Information Service

  56,300.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  9 January 1996

  Nether Heyford P C

  57,181.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Northampton Unwaged Training Resource And Advice Centre

  57,591.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  3 July 1996

  Roade Football Club

  67,454.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Enterprise Training Project

  83,670.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Welfare Rights Advice Service

  89,866.00

  Northampton South

  Arts

  26 June 1996

  Royal Theatre Northampton

  100,000.00

  Northampton South

  Arts

  23 July 1996

  The Derngate Trust

  100,000.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Northampton Soup Kitchen

  108,204.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Northamptonshire Charter For Youth

  195,500.00

  Northampton South

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  The Council On Addiction For Northamptonshire (C A N)

  242,000.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  4 July 1995

  Bugbrook Playing Fields Association

  292,100.00

  Northampton South

  Heritage

  14 February 1996

  English Heritage

  300,000.00

  Northampton South

  Millennium

  11 September 1995

  Northamptonshire County Council

  736,000.00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  9 August 1996

  Northamptonshire County Council

  1,381,787,00

  Northampton South

  Sports

  9 August 1996

  Wellingborough Town Cricket Club

  3,100.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Wellingborough District Racial Equality Council

  5,000.00

  Wellingborough

  Sports

  10 October 1996

  Bozeat Playing Field Association

  9,155.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  20 November 1995

  Rock Street Playgroup

  10,000.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  The Society Of St. Vincent De Paul

  35,030.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  Community Help And Training (c H A T)

  37,764.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  19 December 1995

  National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children

  47,400.00

  Wellingborough

  Sports

  3 July 1996

  Finedon Town Bowls Club

  70,119.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Service Six

  70,887.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Oaktield Limited

  81,200.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  23 October 1995

  Delos Community Trust

  110,000.00

  Wellingborough

  Sports

  6 June 1995

  Wellingborough Rugby Football Club

  131,690.00

  Wellingborough

  Charity

  11 August 1996

  Wellingborough District Hindu Association

  165,320.00

  Wellingborough

  Total

  8,864,423.00

  80 Awards

  Personalised Number Plates (Executive Agencies)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by her Department; and if she will list them. [11413]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are no personalised number plates in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by my Department.

  British tourist authority

  English tourist board

  Scottish tourist board

  Wales tourist board

  Northern Ireland tourist board

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  1979–80

  12.8

  0.31

  10.3

  0.29

  4.3

  1.11

  3.7

  1.75

  3.9

  3.74

  1980–81

  14.2

  0.34

  11.5

  0.32

  5.2

  1.34

  4.3

  2.02

  4.8

  4.57

  1981–82

  16.2

  0.39

  12.7

  0.36

  6.1

  1.57

  5.1

  2.38

  5.3

  4.98

  1982–83

  18.1

  0.43

  14.9

  0.41

  7.2

  1.84

  5.6

  2.61

  5.2

  4.86

  1983–84

  16.9

  0.40

  14.9

  0.41

  8.1

  2.06

  5.0

  2.31

  4.5

  4.17

  1984–85

  17.3

  0.41

  17.7

  0.49

  10.0

  2.50

  6.4

  2.95

  5.1

  4.67

  1985–86

  17.1

  0.40

  16.7

  0.45

  8.7

  2.19

  7.7

  3.53

  5.4

  4.81

  1986–87

  20.6

  0.48

  20.3

  0.55

  9.1

  2.29

  7.9

  3.60

  5.6

  5.04

  1987–88

  22.0

  0.51

  23.3

  0.63

  9.1

  2.28

  8.8

  3.98

  5.0

  4.43

  1988–89

  23.7

  0.54

  25.8

  0.70

  9.9

  2.49

  9.3

  4.17

  5.4

  4.79

  1989–90

  25.6

  0.58

  21.8

  0.58

  11.9

  2.97

  10.0

  4.45

  5.7

  5.02

  1990–91

  27.5

  0.62

  17.2

  0.46

  12.3

  3.06

  10.6

  4.70

  7.5

  6.57

  1991–92

  29.2

  0.66

  15.7

  0.41

  12.8

  3.18

  11.4

  5.04

  7.1

  6.12

  1992–93

  30.9

  0.70

  16.2

  0.43

  13.6

  3.38

  13.7

  6.04

  11.6

  9.86

  1993–94

  32.2

  0.73

  14.9

  0.39

  13.8

  3.43

  13.8

  6.07

  12.1

  10.17

  1994–95

  33.2

  0.75

  11.3

  0.30

  17.4

  4.31

  14.4

  6.34

  12.5

  10.43

  1995–96

  34.5

  0.77

  10.0

  0.26

  16.9

  4.19

  14.7

  6.46

  13.7

  11.36

  1996–97

  35.5

  0.79

  10.0

  0.26

  18.3

  4.53

  14.7

  6.45

  14.7

  12.12

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Department of National Heritage.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will set out the Exchequer grant for the promotion and support of tourism for each of the years 1979–80 to 1996–97 for the English, Wales, Scottish and Northern Ireland tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority at 1979 prices(a) as totals and (b) per head of population aged over 16 years in those areas. [11541]

  British tourist authority

  English tourist board

  Scottish tourist board

  Wales tourist board

  Northern Ireland tourist board

  All GIA figures at 1979 prices

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  1979–80

  12.8

  0.31

  10.3

  0.29

  4.3

  1.11

  3.7

  1.75

  3.9

  3.74

  1980–81

  12.0

  0.29

  9.7

  0.27

  4.4

  1.13

  3.6

  1.69

  4.1

  3.90

  1981–82

  12.5

  0.30

  9.8

  0.27

  4.7

  1.21

  3.9

  1.82

  4.1

  3.85

  1982–83

  13.0

  0.31

  10.7

  0.30

  5.2

  1.33

  4.0

  1.86

  3.7

  3.45

  1983–84

  11.6

  0.27

  10.3

  0.28

  5.6

  1.43

  3.4

  1.57

  3.1

  2.87

  1984–85

  11.3

  0.27

  11.6

  0.32

  6.6

  1.67

  4.2

  1.94

  3.4

  3.12

  1985–86

  10.6

  0.25

  10.4

  0.28

  5.4

  1.36

  4.8

  2.20

  3.4

  3.03

  1986–87

  12.4

  0.29

  12.2

  0.33

  5.5

  1.38

  4.8

  2.19

  3.4

  3.06

  1987–88

  12.6

  0.29

  13.3

  0.36

  5.2

  1.30

  5.0

  2.26

  2.9

  2.57

  1988–89

  12.7

  0.29

  13.8

  0.37

  5.3

  1.33

  5.0

  2.24

  2.9

  2.57

  1989–90

  12.8

  0.29

  10.9

  0.29

  6.0

  1.50

  5.0

  2.23

  2.9

  2.56

  1990–91

  12.8

  0.29

  8.0

  0.21

  5.7

  1.42

  4.9

  2.17

  3.5

  3.06

  1991–92

  12.7

  0.29

  6.8

  0.18

  5.6

  1.39

  5.0

  2.21

  3.1

  2.67

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will set out the Exchequer grant for the promotion and support of tourism for each of the years 1979–80 to 1996–97 for the English, Wales, Scottish and Northern Ireland tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority(a) as totals and (b) per head of population aged over 16 years in those areas. [11540]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1997]: The total Government grant awarded to each of the statutory tourist boards for each year from 1979 to the current year in cash figures, and expressed per head of population for the countries covered by the boards was as follows:

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1997]: The total Government grant to the statutory tourist boards, expressed in 1979 prices for each year from 1979 to 1996, and expressed per head of population aged over 16 years for the countries covered by the boards, was as follows:
  533

  British tourist authority

  English tourist board

  Scottish tourist board

  Wales tourist board

  Northern Ireland tourist board

  All GIA figures at 1979 prices

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population aged over 16 years

  1992–93

  12.9

  0.29

  6.8

  0.18

  5.7

  1.41

  5.7

  2.51

  4.9

  4.17

  1993–94

  13.1

  0.30

  6.1

  0.16

  5.6

  1.39

  5.6

  2.46

  4.9

  4.12

  1994–95

  13.3

  0.30

  4.5

  0.12

  7.0

  1.74

  5.8

  2.55

  5.0

  4.17

  1995–96

  13.4

  0.30

  3.9

  0.10

  6.6

  1.63

  5.7

  2.51

  5.3

  4.39

  1996–97

  13.5

  0.30

  3.8

  0.10

  7.0

  1.73

  5.6

  2.46

  5.6

  4.62

  Source:

  Offices of National Statistics, Department of National Heritage.

  Heritage Lottery Awards
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the heritage lottery awards made to date have been claimed in full; and what proportion this represents of the total awards in terms of(a) number and (b) amount. [10824]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: To date the heritage lottery fund has announced awards to 605 projects totalling £370,912,187. Full payments have been made to 77 projects worth £31,071,205—that is, 13 per cent. of the total number and 8 per cent. of the total amount.

  A further 294 projects have received first payments totalling £92,655,186.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimates she has made of the amount spent on external consultants by her Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10158]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: No such estimates have been made. However, the available information provided by my Department's non-departmental public bodies is given in the following table:

  Financial year

  Expenditure in £ million

  1991–92

  9.2

  1992–93

  9.2

  1993–94

  11.4

  1994–95

  12.5

  1995–96

  16.0

  Year ending September

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Discontinued

  187.399

  185.824

  159.085

  158.594

  153.468

  Percentage of completed cases

  12.8

  13.4

  11.9

  11.9

  12

  Written off

  84.379

  103.323

  119.598

  133.303

  110.454

  Percentage of completed cases

  5.8

  7.4

  8.9

  10

  8.6

  A case "written off' is not thereby terminated. The majority occur when defendants cannot be traced by the police or a warrant for arrest remains unexecuted. Such cases can recommence if and when the defendant can be traced.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Behaviourally Disturbed Young People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce measures to ensure that(a) the police and (b) the Crown Prosecution Service obtain an assessment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for children and adolescents convicted of more than three crimes; and if he will make a statement. [11535]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cambridge study of delinquent development, which was largely funded by the Home Office, found, amongst other results, that the incidence of hyperactivity, attention deficit and impulsivity at age eight to 10 years independently predicted future juvenile convictions. However, the causes of juvenile delinquency are complex and wide ranging, and hyperactivity is only one of many. The Government have no plans to amend their policies in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

  Discontinued Cases
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is the number and percentage of cases that have been(a) discontinued and (b) written off in magistrates courts in England and Wales in each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement; [10920]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in the number of cases written off in table 6.2 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales for 1995"; and if he will make a statement. [10921]

  The Attorney General
  The information requested is available in a consistent format only from 1991 when the present method of recording was adopted. Figures since that date were as follows:

  In most cases the reason for discontinuance is that it becomes impossible to proceed further because, for example, key witnesses fail to appear at court, refuse to give evidence or change their story; because defendants produce driving documents at court and so establish their

  535
  innocence; or because of evidential gaps in the prosecution case which cannot be filled by the police. Whenever possible, in practice in around 75 per cent. of such cases, the Crown Prosecution Service will consult the police before discontinuance and a survey in 1994 showed that the police objected initially to discontinuance in only 4 per cent. of cases when consulted.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations his officials have made to other EU Governments about the necessity of a new EU parliamentary building in(a) Brussels and (b) Strasbourg; and if he will make a statement; [11105]

  (2) what representations he and his officials made to monitor the spending of United Kingdom public funds on the new European Union Parliament building in Brussels; and if he will make a statement. [11107]

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom has consistently pressed for value for money and sound financial practice in all European institutions. Overall ceilings for expenditure are set by the Council, but within that, spending by the European Parliament on building and other programmes is a matter for the Parliament in the first place, subject to scrutiny of its spending by the European Court of Auditors. We have not made separate representations.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list an inventory of internal fixtures and fittings and building costs, in sterling, of the new European Union Parliament in Brussels; what has been the cost to United Kingdom public funds; and if he will make a statement. [11106]

  Mr. Davis
  Title 2 of section 1 of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1996—Official Journal of the European Committees, volume 39 of 29 January 1996—gives details of the
  "buildings, equipment and miscellaneous operating expenditure"
  of the European Parliament.

  The United Kingdom's contribution to the 1996 EU budget represented 15 per cent. of the budget.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is(a) the total cost and (b) the cost to British public funds of building the new European Union Parliament building in Brussels; and if he will make a statement. [11108]

  Mr. Davis
  The total cost of the new European Parliament building in Brussels was estimated to be 831 million ecu, or £612.7 million, by the European Commission on 29 October 1996.

  The UK's contribution to the 1996 EU budget represented 15 per cent. of the budget.

  Angola
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the United Nations mission in Angola. [11840]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UN Security Council will discuss soon the future of the UN mission in Angola—UNAVEM III. We envisage that following the progressive withdrawal of UNAVEM III at the end of its mandate—28 February 1997—a residual UN presence will continue to be needed. This will probably include a political component, human rights monitors and military and police observers.

  Arms Trafficking
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the committee established by the Government to inquire into controls and procedures relating to trafficking in arms reported; what are its main conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [12263]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Following media reports linking British companies to the supply of arms in contravention of UN embargoes to Rwandan extremists in Zaire, the Government announced on 19 November that they had established an inter-departmental committee to examine rigorously the United Kingdom's procedures in relation to trafficking in arms and to determine whether there had been a gap in controls, and if so what action needed to be taken. The committee's terms of reference were given to the House in a written answer from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Official Report, 11 December 1997, columns 270–71.

  The committee's report was submitted on 17 December. It notes that Customs investigators are seeking to establish whether there have been any illegal acts coming within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction. It would not be appropriate to comment further on Customs and Excise investigations at this stage.

  The UN arms embargo on Rwanda was not implemented in the Crown dependencies, and there was also a delay in its implementation in the dependent territories. The gap in controls, which the report notes was a narrow one, has already been put right as recommended by the committee. Consideration is also being given to whether the precise terms of the existing Orders in Council implementing the UN arms embargo against Rwanda are adequate.

  The committee reached four main conclusions: first, that there had been a lack of consistency in implementing embargoes in the UK, its dependent territories, and the Crown dependencies; secondly, that there were no structured arrangements for ensuring the timely and accurate imposition of embargoes; thirdly, that there was a need for greater clarity and transparency on the scope of the embargoes; finally, that under current UK legislation, trafficking could be prohibited only in relation to binding UN arms embargos.
  537
  The committee recommended that:

  (a) The UN arms embargoes against Rwanda, Somalia and Liberia should be implemented in the Crown dependencies as soon as possible. The necessary orders were made on 19 December.

  (b) All future binding UN arms embargoes should be applied promptly in the UK and in Crown dependencies and the dependent territories, in accordance with HMG's international obligations.

  (c) As a matter of policy, all other arms embargoes should be applied promptly in the UK, the Crown dependencies and the dependent territories, in consultation with the dependent territories concerned.

  (d) An inter-departmental committee, chaired by the Cabinet Office, should co-ordinate the introduction, application, amendment and lifting of all arms embargoes, including their scope and announcement.

  (e) This committee should also consider the preparation of a public document, which would set out the basis and scope of all current arms embargoes and which would be kept up to date.

  (f) It should be determined, as a matter of priority, whether the precise terms of the Order in Council implementing the UN arms embargo against Rwanda are adequate and any necessary remedial action taken.

  (g) A considered assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of primary legislation to prohibit arms trafficking, taking account of the factors identified in this report, should be conducted as part of the current Government review of strategic export controls.

  The Government have endorsed the committee's report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, and will be implementing its recommendations.

TREASURY

  Bowel Cancer
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new cases of bowel cancer were diagnosed on average in each of the last 10 years; and how many people died of carcinoma of the bowel in 1995. [10833]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The number of deaths that occurred in England and Wales in 1995, together with aged standardised rates per 100,000 population, and the data on new cases of bowel cancer are given in the following tables:

  The numbers of deaths that occurred in England and Wales in 1995 (together with age standardised rate per 100,000)

  Males

  Females

  Numbers

  Rate1

  Numbers

  Rate1

  Malignant neoplasm of small intestine, including duodenum (ICD2 152)

  116

  0.4

  98

  0.3

  Malignant neoplasm of colon (ICD2 153)

  5,178

  18.1

  5,636

  13

  Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus (ICD2 154)

  2,813

  9.9

  2,122

  4.9

  Bowel cancer (ICD2 152–154)

  8,107

  28.5

  8,107

  28.5

  1 The male and female rates have been directly standardised against the (same) European Standard Population so that the mortality for males can be compared with that for females.

  2 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  538

  Incidence of bowel cancer (ICD9 152, 153 and 154), numbers and rates per 100,0001, England and Wales, 1982–91: males and females (1directly age standardised using European standard population)

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Numbers

  Rate

  Numbers

  Rate

  Malignant neoplasm of small intestine including duodenum (ICD9 152)

  1982

  154

  0.6

  145

  0.4

  1983

  182

  0.7

  157

  0.5

  1984

  178

  0.7

  167

  0.5

  1985

  205

  0.8

  171

  0.5

  1986

  168

  0.7

  175

  0.5

  1987

  189

  0.8

  175

  0.5

  1988

  181

  0.7

  196

  0.5

  1989

  177

  0.7

  193

  0.6

  1990

  178

  0.7

  191

  0.5

  1991

  216

  0.8

  185

  0.5

  Malignant neoplasm of colon (ICD9 153)

  1982

  6,837

  27.3

  8,633

  23.7

  1983

  6,955

  27.8

  8,709

  23.6

  1984

  7,020

  27.5

  8,651

  23.0

  1985

  7,399

  28.7

  9,066

  24.1

  1986

  7,163

  27.6

  9,016

  23.9

  1987

  7,679

  29.3

  9,323

  23.8

  1988

  7,714

  29.1

  9,413

  24.1

  1989

  7,802

  29.1

  9,102

  23.0

  1990

  8,024

  29.8

  9,316

  23.5

  1991

  8,069

  29.5

  9,403

  23.7

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Numbers

  Rate

  Numbers

  Rate

  Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus (ICD9 154)

  1982

  5,364

  21.4

  4,541

  12.7

  1983

  5,543

  21.9

  4,641

  12.9

  1984

  5,564

  21.9

  4,549

  12.4

  1985

  6,028

  23.3

  4,693

  12.7

  1986

  5,659

  21.7

  4,554

  12.3

  1987

  5,644

  21.6

  4,553

  12.1

  1988

  5,849

  22.2

  4,587

  12.3

  1989

  5,690

  21.4

  4,565

  12.0

  1990

  5,898

  22.1

  4,474

  11.9

  1991

  5,826

  21.6

  4,441

  11.8

  Bowel cancer (ICD9 152–4)

  1982

  12,354

  49.4

  13,319

  36.8

  1983

  12,681

  50.4

  13,506

  37.0

  1984

  12,763

  50.1

  13,367

  35.9

  1985

  13,632

  52.8

  13,931

  37.3

  1986

  12,990

  49.9

  13,746

  36.7

  1987

  13,512

  51.7

  14,051

  36.5

  1988

  13,745

  52.1

  14,196

  36.9

  1989

  13,669

  51.2

  13,860

  35.6

  1990

  14,100

  52.6

  13,981

  35.9

  1991

  14,111

  52.0

  14,029

  35.9

  1 The male and female rates have been directly standardised against the (same) European Standard Population so that the mortality for males can be compared with that for females.

  Landfill Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to permit a temporary exemption to landfill tax for those local authorities which are forced to dispose of unsold paper for recycling, which was collected to meet the Government's target for recycling waste by 2000. [11165]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no plans to do so.

  Bathability Services
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received by HM Customs and Excise about the application of VAT to bathability services; and if he will make a statement. [11585]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Supplies of bathing services in the home when provided by a public body as a welfare provision otherwise than for profit are not liable to VAT. One representation has been received by HM Customs and Excise.

  Inland Revenue Office, Salisbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the future of the inland revenue local office in Salisbury. [11008]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: The board of Inland Revenue is currently considering reorganisation proposals from its network controllers which include the creation of a new-style office in Salisbury.

  Insurance Premium Tax (Holiday Insurance)
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue forecast from the imposition of a rate of insurance premium tax of 17.5 per cent. on holiday insurance sold by travel agents; and what account it takes of switching of the purchase of holiday insurance from travel agents to insurance brokers in order to incur the lower rate of insurance premium tax. [11451]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: Around £70 million of the estimated £235 million revenue yield in 1998–99—published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report"—is from charging the higher rate of insurance premium tax on travel insurance; the remaining £165 million is from charging the higher rate of insurance premium tax on mechanical breakdown insurance of various types and insurance sold with TV and car hire. The travel insurance costing incorporates assumptions about changes in behaviour in response to the increased rate of IPT and this includes the option to buy travel insurance direct from insurers or through insurance brokers.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what submissions or correspondence he has received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of holiday makers going abroad uninsured as a result of the proposed 17.5 per cent. rate of insurance premium tax on holiday insurance sold by travel agents; and if he will place copies of such submissions or correspondence in the Library. [11452]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: No such submissions or correspondence have been received.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the VAT currently lost to the Exchequer as a result of travel agents selling higher margin insurance with a high holiday discount instead of a low holiday discount and a lower insurance margin. [11453]
  540
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: VAT lost to the Exchequer is not dependent on the practice of holiday price discounting by travel agents. The usual pricing structure of the industry is that low margins are applied to holidays and high margins are applied to the associated sales of VAT exempt insurance.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made by his Department of the commercial impact on travel agents of the proposed imposition of a higher rate of insurance premium tax on holiday insurance sold by travel agents than on similar insurance sold by insurance brokers and agents. [11679]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: Current pricing differentials and marketing practices in this sector, coupled with the fact that insurance provided free by travel agents will not be subject to the higher rate of insurance premium tax, suggest that the proposed tax differential in favour of other insurance agents and brokers is unlikely to have a significant effect on purchasing behaviour.

  Work Force (Barrow)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the size of the work force in the Barrow travel-to-work area in(a) 1990 and (b) 1996. [11022]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 16 January 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. John Hutton, dated 21 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the size of the workforce in the Barrow-in-Furness travel-to-work area in 1990 and 1996.
  The workforce is made up of the workforce in employment (employees, self-employed, armed forces and government-supported training participants) plus the claimant unemployed. However, information at travel-to-work area is available only for employees in employment and for claimant unemployment. The available information, closest to the dates requested, is provided in the following table:

  Barrow in Furness travel-to-work area (at September)

  Employees

  Claimant unemployed

  1989

  42,700

  2,452

  1991

  36,100

  3,749

  1993

  32,500

  4,921

  Source:

  ONS.

  1995 information for travel-to-work areas is expected shortly, and I will write to you when it is available.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Expenditure)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of total expenditure by non-departmental public bodies in each year since 1993–94; and what projections he has made for future years. [11442]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 January 1997]: No information is held centrally on the total expenditure of non-departmental public bodies, or of projections for

  541
  their total expenditure in future years. We do not do so because the annual public expenditure survey does not distinguish explicitly between direct expenditure by Departments and expenditure of the NDPBs they sponsor. "Public Bodies 1996", published by the Cabinet Office in December 1996, includes information about the gross expenditure of executive non-departmental public bodies in 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1996,Official Report, column 642, relating to VAT, if he will provide equivalent information on VAT registrations and deregistrations for 1996. [11447]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 January 1997]: The registration and deregistration information for 1996 is in the attached schedule.

  Registrations and deregistrations for 1996

  Collection

  Registration

  Northern Ireland

  4,057

  Central England

  15,960

  Anglia

  10,994

  South-east England

  7,476

  South England

  14,454

  Thames Valley

  20,465

  London Central

  17,375

  London South and Tames

  12,521

  East England

  16,309

  North-west England

  15,611

  North England

  14,089

  Scotland

  12,271

  Wales West and Borders

  16,533

  Collection

  Deregistrations

  Northern Ireland

  3,250

  Central England

  15,788

  Anglia

  10,215

  South-east England

  7,194

  South England

  13,593

  Thames Valley

  17,356

  London Central

  12,159

  London South and Tames

  10,146

  East England

  15,771

  North West England

  15,059

  North England

  14,070

  Scotland

  11,728

  Wales West and Borders

  16,411

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by her Department. [11597]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ministers of the Crown are able to make use of the child care facilities provided by the Department.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a542
  statement on trends in teachers' premature retirement over the past 10 years; and what reports she has evaluated into advice issued by local education authorities relating to premature retirement over this period. [11588]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table shows the number of premature retirements for each of the last 10 years. The figures vary, but the peak number in 1995–96 was 44 per cent. above the number in 1986–87. My right hon. Friend has made no evaluation of research into advice issued by LEAs relating to premature retirement over this period.

  Year of retirement

  Number of retirees

  1986–87

  9,087

  1987–88

  7,559

  1988–89

  12,346

  1989–90

  12,334

  1990–91

  11,692

  1991–92

  10,287

  1992–93

  12,214

  1993–94

  12,233

  1994–95

  10,608

  1995–96

  13,055

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total sum paid out in enhanced pension payments to teachers taking early retirement in Kirklees metropolitan council area in each of the past 10 years. [11790]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is given in the following table, which has been derived from the Department of Environment's RO 1 return. The figures for years 1985–86 to 1988–89 are drawn from memorandum line 2 and are for premature retirement compensation only. Those for subsequent years are for premature retirement and Crombie compensation payments, and it is not possible to split them down further.

  Year

  (WOO)

  1985–86

  164

  1986–87

  29

  1987–88

  221

  1988–89

  534

  1989–90

  568

  1990–91

  255

  1991–92

  1,372

  1992–93

  838

  1993–94

  397

  1994–95

  410

  Student Loans
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many students applied for student loans in each year since 1993; and if she will make a statement; [11337]

  (2) how many students who graduated in each year between 1989 and 1995 are still in debt to the Student Loans Company; and if she will make a statement. [11338]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her latest estimate of current expenditure on and take-up of career development loans in(a) the Eastwood constituency, (b) Renfrewshire and (c) Scotland. [11658]

  Mr. Paice
  Expenditure estimates on CDLs are not available below national level. The number of approved CDLs in Scotland for the year 1996–97 as at 31 December is 617. Figures below Scotland can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Education and the Community (MORI Research)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what questions relating to, and mentioning, marriage were included in the research conducted by MORI on behalf of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. [11660]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Recipients of the questionnaires issued to the samples surveyed by MORI were asked to refer to the consultation document, which set out both the values statements and the view of some of the members of the forum on values that a reference to marriage should be included in the statement on the family. They were asked for views on whether any of the values statements required strengthening. Focus group discussions were prompted in a similar fashion.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons the consultation document on the national forum for values in education and the community issued by SCAA did not specify the date for the end of the consultation period; when it was sent; and if she will make a statement. [11661]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will take into account all comments received by 10 January when it considers what recommendations to put to Ministers. SCAA initially failed to notify some of those who requested its consultation document that the deadline for responses was 29 November. In the light of concerns expressed to it, it subsequently notified all who had requested the document and had not yet responded that they had until 10 January to do so.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) parents, (b) head teachers and heads of personal and social education and (c) school governors were involved in the qualitative research conducted by MORI on behalf of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. [11559]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The MORI research included a quantitative and a qualitative element. The quantitative research comprised: an omnibus survey of a representative sample of 1,455 adults, including 597 parents; a postal survey of some 700 organisations with an interest, including teacher associations, parents' and governor's organisations; and a postal survey of a random sample of 3,200 schools—1,200 secondary and 2,000 primary schools. The qualitative research comprised four focus group discussions, each involving five to 10 parents; four focus group discussions, each involving six to eight school governors; and six focus group discussions, each involving four to eight head teachers or heads of PSE. In 544
  addition, anyone could request a copy of the document "Consultation on values in education and the community" and respond to it.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons the concept of marriage was not included in the main body of the report arising from the consultation exercise on the national forum for values in education and the community conducted by SCAA. [11560]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The consultation document set out the draft statement of values agreed by the vast majority of forum members and quoted a more tightly drawn reference to family values, preferred by five forum members, which made specific reference to marriage.

  Marriage is mentioned several times in MORI's consolidated report on the consultation, discussed by the forum at its meetings on 6 January. The forum approved, with slight amendment, a revised reference to the family in the draft values statement which gives greater prominence to marriage.

  Ault Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will make available the findings of the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study on adult literacy and numeracy skills. [11185]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: The national report for the international adult literacy survey will be published as soon as possible after the Office for National Statistics receives the data from Statistics Canada, the body co-ordinating the survey, and checks and analyses have been carried out to ensure we are satisfied with the accuracy and quality of the figures. We expect this to be by the autumn of this year, which is in line with the time scale originally planned for this complex international survey.

  Medical School (Southern England)
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to announce the proposed location of a new medical school in the south of England; and if she will make a statement. [11102]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to announce the setting up of a new medical school. It is the Government's view that the planned increases in medical student intakes recommended in the 1995 report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee can be accommodated within the existing medical schools.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the performance of TECs in England and Wales to date in respect of achieving the 100 per cent. plan target in relation to financial systems management information, the collection of evidence, audit and supplies. [11367]
  545
  Mr. Paice
  TECs have made significance progress in addressing the former shortcomings in financial control relating to training and enterprise programmes identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in reports on the Department's appropriation accounts up to 1991–92. It was these which gave rise to the commitment to the Public Accounts Committee in January 1992 that the Department would institute a plan to achieve 100 per cent. effectiveness in financial control in TECs and, through them, their providers of training and other activities. All TECs in England are currently assessed as low risk for financial control purposes. The Comptroller and Auditor General's latest report' acknowledges that the priority given by the Department to financial control has resulted in a substantial reduction in incorrect and uncertain payments to TECs and their providers. The Government continue to set rigorous financial control standards for TECs to safeguard the large amounts of public funding provided to them and to refine these standards to build upon the progress made through the original 100 per cent. plan. The responsibility for the TECs in Wales falls to the Secretary of State for Wales. The Welsh Office has confirmed that, on the most recently completed risk assessment audits, all the TECs in Wales had also achieved low-risk status.

  1 Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: "Department for Education and Employment: Financial Control of Payments made under the Training for Work and Youth Training Programmes in England" (HC 402 Session 1995–96, published 12 June 1995).

  Cass Sizes (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in primary schools are currently in classes of more than 30 pupils. [11895]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number of pupils in one teacher classes of size 31 or more in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: January 1996

  Corporation of London

  0

  Camden

  447

  Greenwich

  1,412

  Hackney

  664

  Hammersmith

  1,036

  Islington

  982

  Kensington and Chelsea

  187

  Lambeth

  857

  Lewisham

  917

  Southwark

  2,051

  Tower Hamlets

  859

  Wandsworth

  2,373

  Westminster

  544

  Barking

  1,603

  Barnet

  1,848

  Bexley

  8,821

  Brent

  2,259

  Bromley

  11,850

  Croydon

  6,341

  Ealing

  5,508

  Enfield

  8,840

  Haringey

  984

  Harrow

  3,833

  Havering

  5,678

  Hillingdon

  4,820

  Hounslow

  5,674

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,095

  Merton

  3,955

  Newham

  2,381

  Redbridge

  9,060

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,309

  Sutton

  4,235

  546

  Number of pupils in one teacher classes of size 31 or more in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: January 1996

  Waltham Forest

  3,282

  Birmingham

  25,642

  Coventry

  7,638

  Dudley

  6,618

  Sandwell

  11,812

  Solihull

  8,403

  Walsall

  7,241

  Wolverhampton

  6,762

  Knowsley

  5,254

  Liverpool

  12,051

  St. Helens

  5,563

  Sefton

  10,670

  Wirral

  6,987

  Bolton

  11,719

  Bury

  6,968

  Manchester

  9,687

  Oldham

  9,434

  Rochdale

  8,316

  Salford

  6,997

  Stockport

  8,247

  Tameside

  11,508

  Trafford

  9,389

  Wigan

  11,087

  Barnsley

  8,677

  Doncaster

  9,609

  Rotherham

  5,732

  Sheffield

  11,181

  Bradford

  11,449

  Calderdale

  6,331

  Kirklees

  14,395

  Leeds

  21,455

  Wakefild

  10,673

  Gateshead

  2,443

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,792

  North Tyneside

  4,897

  South Tyneside

  4,067

  Sunderland

  4,148

  Isles of Scily

  0

  Avon

  26,647

  Bedforshire

  11,867

  Berkshire

  18,309

  Buckinghamshire

  22,753

  Cambridgeshire

  18,065

  Cheshire

  32,225

  Cleveland

  13,869

  Cornwall

  14,936

  Cumbria

  11,382

  Derbyshire

  41,217

  Devon

  28,078

  Dorset

  19,654

  Durham

  19,881

  East Sussex

  20,971

  Essex

  34,741

  Gloucetershire

  14,246

  Hampshire

  44,938

  Hereford and Worcester

  13,225

  Hertfordshire

  23,396

  Humberside

  27,832

  Isle of Wight

  2,243

  Kent

  44,212

  Lancasire

  54,099

  Leicestershire

  21,784

  Lincolnshire

  13,962

  Norfolk

  13,224

  North Yorkshire

  18,663

  Northamptonshire

  11,089

  Northumberland

  8,478

  Nottinghamshire

  32,931

  Oxfordshire

  10,608

  Shropshire

  13,425

  Somerset

  13,649

  Staffordshire

  32,163

  Suffolk

  7,940

  Surrey

  14,197

  Warwickshire

  17,566

  West Sussex

  14,447

  Wiltshire

  15,128

  England

  1,260,587

  National Funding Formula
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy not to introduce a national funding formula. [12065]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government published a discussion paper on national funding for grant-maintained schools in May 1996. The Government are analysing the responses, which have raised a number of issues.

  Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to link the home fee status classification of students and the rules of eligibility that may be adopted for awards specified in the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1994, as amended, to those who are settled in the United Kingdom under the immigration laws. [12262]

  Mr. Forth
  Further to the account of the outcome of the programme of work arising from the scrutiny on enforcement of the immigration laws on 24 October 1996 by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe),Official Report, column 2, I confirm that revised Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations will be laid before Parliament to add a requirement of being settled in the United Kingdom under the immigration laws to the existing criteria for establishing a "relevant connection" for the purpose of student fee classifications by institutions and to the rules of candidate eligibility for certain awards which may be adopted by education authorities and other specified bodies.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit. [8534]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: None of those appointed in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit.

  Chief Medical Officer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times he has met the chief medical officer over the last six months; and if he will list the issues discussed. [9634]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I and my officials have regularly met the chief medical officer over the last six months to discuss issues of importance to human health and food safety.

  Personalised Number Plates (Executive Agencies)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11411]
  548
  Mr. Boswell
  The executive agencies operated by this Ministry do not have any personalised number plates.

  Wash Shrimp Fishery
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has commissioned on the impact of dredging on the Wash shrimp fishery; and if he will assess the advantages of allocating alternative dredging areas to evaluate the impact of dredging on the shrimp fishery. [11641]

  Mr. Baldry
  An intensive dredging operation is being carried out in a licensed area known as area 107, well outside the mouth of the Wash, to provide sand to replenish the beaches along 22 km of the Lincolnshire coast.

  When asked to contribute to a Government view on the necessary increase to the quantity licensed for extraction, I insisted on an extensive monitoring programme. Work undertaken has confirmed that the shrimp population in the general area has declined, but has shown no evidence as yet to link this with the dredging operations and studies of the area have shown that a healthy benthic community has been maintained even quite close to the dredging area. There are no scientific grounds therefore, at present for moving the dredging to a different area.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he or his officials have to meet Consumers for Health Choice and other consumer and practitioner organisations to discuss the work of the Food Advisory Committee in connection with vitamin B6. [11501]

  Mrs. Browning
  Officials will shortly be inviting Consumers for Health Choice and other organisations representing consumer, nutritional therapy and industry interests to meetings to discuss the Food Advisory Committee's recommendations on vitamin B6.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what scientific peer-reviewed studies were considered by the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment in connection with their recent conclusions on the use of vitamin B6; and to what extent those committees took note of comments on studies of vitamin B6 supplementation by Alan Gaby MD in 1990; [11499]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the published results of studies of vitamin B6 supplementation undertaken by Brush MG and Perry M, by Baker H and Frank 0, by Pauling L and by Mitwalli A, Blair G and Oreopoulos DG; and whether these papers were considered by the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment in connection with their recent conclusions on vitamin B6. [11500]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Food Advisory Committee's recommendations were based on advice on the toxicity of vitamin B6 provided by the Department of Health's
  549
  Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. The COT considered 31 publications from international scientific journals, one chapter from a book on vitamin B6 and three reports from other committees, including one from the EC Scientific Committee for Food. The Department of Health has arranged for a list of the papers considered to be deposited in the Library of the House. The papers referred to by the hon. Gentleman were not among those considered.

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take action to ensure that beef producers are not more greatly disadvantaged by the effect of the BSE problem than are dairy farmers. [11845]

  Mr. Baldry
  Inevitably, not all producers will have been affected equally by the BSE problem over the last 10 months, or benefited equally from the wide range of measures which the Government have introduced. While the dairy industry has benefited from the calf processing aid scheme and from the over-30-months scheme for cattle, the beef industry is also receiving direct aid which will be worth over £250 million. The key point is that the survival of the UK beef and dairy industries has been assured. For the longer term, we are committed to ensuring that the beef export ban is lifted and that all other economic conditions are in place to provide both industries with a viable future.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further assessment he has made of the difficulties faced by smaller beef producers.[11846]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 6 November,Official Report, column 582, other than to note that the total of EU and Exchequer funds being made available in direct support to UK beef producers now stands at over £250 million.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which strains of Newcastle disease have been recorded in the current(a) Ross on Wye and (b) East Sussex outbreaks; and if he will make a statement. [12095]

  Mrs. Browning
  The central veterinary laboratory, which is an international reference laboratory for Newcastle disease, has given these outbreaks a designation of C1. This classification records the way that monoclonal antibodies react to the virus isolate in cell structure.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Child Welfare
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 127, on the health of British children, what factors underlay his rejection of the Health Visitors Association's survey. [11601]
  550
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The "Health Visitors' Association Centenary Survey: Return of Diseases and Social Conditions of the 19th Century" was published on 25 November 1996 without details of the survey's design, methodology, sampling technique or response rate. Without these, it is not possible to assess the validity of the conclusions.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the 800 documents on Gulf war illness to which reference is made at paragraph 1.B.17 of his Department's organophosphate pesticide investigation team report D/OPPIT/3 of 6 December. [9593]

  Mr. Soames
  The documents referred to in paragraph 1.B.17 of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team's report are a miscellaneous collection of papers related to the issue of illness of personnel who served in the Gulf war contained in files located in one particular area of my Department. From the records of the team, the collection comprises internal minutes, notes, briefs and submissions; external letters and faxes; draft PQ material,Hansard extracts and a parliamentary petition; press releases, clippings and media transcripts; and published research papers and reports. The team's report does not suggest that this material in any way represents a coherent or comprehensive picture of my Department's consideration of this issue. The team made this reference simply to indicate the scale of the task which faced them in carrying out their work against very tight deadlines.

  By its nature a good deal of the material is already in the public domain. The remainder would need to be checked document by document against the requirements of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", though most if not all of it is likely to be covered by the internal discussion and advice exemption in the code. Checking of the material to provide the information requested could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf War (Vaccinations)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vaccines on the list of vaccines placed in the Library were administered to personnel serving during the conflict with Iraq. [11293]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the memorandum "UK vaccination programme during the Gulf Conflict (1990–1991)" which was placed in the Library of the House on 10 December 1996, and to the document D/SG(Hlth) 2/3/2/9 dated October 1993 "Report on the vaccines used for Operation Granby", which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many British service personnel have been charged with disorderly conduct by(a) the military and (b) the civil police authorities in Hong Kong in each of the past three years; [11317]

  (2) if he will make a statement on recent disturbances in Hong Kong caused by British service personnel; and if he will make a statement on the (a) damage caused and (b) compensation sought; [11318]

  (3) what recent discussion he has had with (a) the Governor of Hong Kong and (b) the senior military officer in Hong Kong regarding the behaviour of British service personnel stationed in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement; [11316]

  (4) how many British service personnel were arrested for disturbances caused in Hong Kong over the Christmas period. [11315]

  Mr. Soames
  On 21 December 1996, a number of soldiers intervened in a fight between two groups of European construction employees who had been drinking in a bar. One soldier was subsequently arrested for fighting, along with seven civilians. I am not aware that any damage was caused by the soldiers or that compensation is being sought from them. Indeed, the Royal Hong Kong police later praised the soldiers for attempting to intervene in a difficult situation.

  The matter is in the hands of the Royal Hong Kong police, who are now considering charges against those arrested.

  Over the past three years the number of personnel charged and convicted of disorderly conduct—an offence covering fighting, drunkenness, causing a disturbance and disorderly conduct within barracks—was:

  Civilian authorities

  Charged

  Convicted

  Military authorities Convictions

  1994

  18

  14

  136

  1995

  7

  4

  10

  1996

  12

  6

  26

  1 Records of cases brought under military law, but dismissed, are not held centrally.

  Four service personnel were arrested for such offences between 20 December 1996 and 4 January 1997, three of whom are included in the 1996 figures.

  Commander British Forces, Hong Kong is responsible for all disciplinary matters concerning British service personnel in Hong Kong. He liaises directly with the governor, and with the Royal Hong Kong police where appropriate. The maintenance of discipline is taken extremely seriously. The British garrison in Hong Kong has an excellent record and we are determined that this will continue to be maintained until the garrison leaves in June.

  Personalised Number Plates (Executive Agencies)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11421]
  552
  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a timetable for the rundown of his Department's jobs on Gibraltar and make a statement on measures taken to assist in the retraining of military personnel for alternative employment. [11819]

  Mr. Soames
  The 1994 review of the Gibraltar garrison, which identified the core tasks in Gibraltar and associated manpower levels required, made reductions in military and civilian strengths possible. The reduction in military posts is now virtually complete. The reduction in civilian posts will take place over the next few years, primarily in 1998 and 1999; precise details have yet to be established. There are no military redundancies specifically related to this rundown but my Department is working closely with the Gibraltar Government and the trades unions on providing suitable re-training of civilian personnel for alternative employment.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further changes to the terms of the non-movers package 1993 originally on offer to entitled officers Her Majesty's Treasury has authorised his Department to make. [11907]

  Mr. Soames
  The non-movers package was introduced by the Treasury as an aid to relocating key staff. The responsibility for determining relocation expenses was transferred to Government Departments in 1993. Under that delegation the MOD decided to make the non-movers package more widely available in order to assist those affected by the major relocations that have been taking place in the Department. We have no plans to make major changes to current arrangements.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of implementing the US-UK 1958 mutual defence agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for defence purposes since it was last amended. [12090]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many times he has made requests to the United States Government for permission to transfer nuclear weapons information of United States provenance provided under the US-UK 1958 mutual defence agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for defence purposes to France; [12082]

  (2) on how many occasions there have been requests by the United States Government for permission to transfer nuclear weapon information of British provenance provided under the US-UK 1958 mutual defence agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for defence purposes to France. [12083]

  Mr. Soames
  We are not aware of any such requests by either party.

  Service Redundancies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the costs incurred by his Department as a result of redundancies in each of the three services in each of the past six years. [11456]

  Mr. Soames
  The "Options for Change" redundancy programme began in financial year 1992–93. In that year redundancy payments of £232 million were made. In 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 the payments totalled £509 million, £453 million and £187 million respectively.

  These costs are split between the three services as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  RN

  12

  95

  75

  28

  41

  Army

  209

  328

  281

  16

  5

  RAF

  11

  86

  97

  143

  138

  Total

  232

  509

  453

  187

  184

  1Estimate.

  The payments include special capital payments, early payment of terminal grants, commuted pension payments and the first year's payment of immediate pensions.

  The figures for 1996–97 are an estimate as the RAF redundancy programme will not be completed until the end of the year.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the costs of recruitment in each of the services in each of the past six years. [11457]

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of recruitment in each of the services for each of the last six years is as shown. Total army recruitment costs for the first year are not available as they cannot be identified separately.

  £ million

  Year

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  1990–91

  23.48

  n/a

  26.33

  1991–92

  26.83

  42.20

  27.98

  1992–93

  19.00

  42.60

  27.45

  1993–94

  21.10

  48.61

  27.60

  1994–95

  19.50

  45.91

  27.87

  1995–96

  21.88

  56.20

  26.88

  Armed Service Personnel
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of(a) uniformed personnel and (b) civilian employees within each of the armed services as at 1 January 1997. [11847]

  Mr. Soames
  The most recent figures available relate to 1 December 1996 and are published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency in "Service and Civilian Personnel Statistics Monthly Return (SCPS) 1", which is available in the House of Commons Library. Figures for 1 January 1997 will be available in the first week of February 1997. The breakdowns of regular armed forces and permanent UK based civilian staff as at 1 December 1996 are as follows:554

  Navy personnel

  Army personnel

  RAF personnel

  All service personnel

  Civilian employees

  Navy budget areas

  42,321

  988

  193

  43,502

  22,444

  Army budget areas

  168

  98,348

  294

  98,810

  34,426

  RAF budget areas

  110

  192

  54,689

  54,991

  16,690

  Central budget areas

  3,082

  10,221

  5,437

  18,740

  21,471

  Trading funds

  136

  96

  206

  438

  14,960

  Service LEPs (including Gurkhas)

  206

  4,620

  —

  4,826

  —

  All

  46,023

  114,465

  60,819

  221,307

  109,993

  In accordance with civilian headcount conventions, part-timers are counted as the proportion of full-time hours they work. Totals may not equal the sum of the parts due to rounding. Included in the 114,465 Army personnel are 1,183 reserves serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the size of the Territorial Army in each of the last five years; and what is his Department's estimate of the figure in each of the next three years. [11454]

  Mr. Soames
  The size of the Territorial Army over the last five years is as follows:

  Size of the Territorial Army1

  Year

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 April 1992

  271,000

  70,100

  1 April 1993

  71,000

  67,200

  1 April 1994

  63,500

  63,600

  1 April 1995

  59,000

  58,400

  1 April 1996

  59,000

  57,300

  1Figures exclude non-regular permanent staff.

  2This is an estimate figure reflecting the drawdown of the Territorial Army to its post-"Options for Change" structure.

  The planned establishment of the Territorial Army at 1 April for 1997, 1998 and 1999 will be 59,000. The actual strength in each of the three years will depend largely on recruitment and retention patterns.

  Military Provost Guard Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Military Provost Guard Service personnel are planned to be stationed at(a) Chicksands, (b) Chilwell-Chetwynd barracks, (c) BOD Donnington and (d) Land Command Wilton from 1 April 1997. [11289]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: The Military Provost Guard Service pilot scheme will involve a total of 118 Military Provost Guard Service soldiers stationed at Chicksands, Chilwell-Chetwynd Barracks, BOD Donnington and Wilton. Given the potential implications for the security of military establishments, I have decided to withhold the details of the specific number of security personnel deployed at specific sites

  555
  under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has commenced recruitment for the Military Provost Guard Service. [11287]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: Recruitment to the Military Provost Guard Service has commenced, but no soldiers will be enlisted until parliamentary procedures are completed.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce Military Provost Guard Service at(a) Woolwich garrison, (b) Catterick garrison, (c) Dishforth, (d) Arborfield, (e) Grantham and (f) Weeton barracks. [11288]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: Should the trial prove successful at pilot sites, it would be the intention to replace Ministry of Defence police officers with Military Provost Guard Service soldiers at other military locations where Ministry of Defence police officers are complemented for armed guarding rather than constabulary duties. The locations will be the subject of consultation with the Defence Police Federation and the trade unions concerned nearer the time.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Military Provost Guard Service personnel are to be issued with SA80 assault rifles. [11290]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 January]: The SA80 5.56mm service rifle is the standard issue rifle for the British Army. As such, it will be the primary weapon used by Military Provost Guard Service soldiers whilst carrying out armed guarding duties, as it currently is for Ministry of Defence police officers and full engagement soldiers. In appropriate cases, the 9mm Browning pistol may be issued.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rules of engagement to be employed by the Military Provost Guard Service personnel. [11291]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: I have decided to withhold the information requested under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to defence, security and international relations."

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Targeting Social Need Policy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of the targeting social need policy initiative in education in respect of community differentials. [10941]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department's targeting social need policy focuses on the targeting of additional resources at those schools with the greatest need in terms of social and educational disadvantage, regardless of the community to which those schools or their pupils belong. Just over 60 per cent. of TSN funding allocated to schools under the 556
  local management of schools arrangements goes to Catholic maintained schools, and that is a reflection of the additional identified need in those schools.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision has been made for the costs of redundancies under his proposals for the incorporation of further education colleges; and upon whom such costs will fall. [10942]

  Mr. Ancram
  Discussions are taking place with education and library boards on the transfer of resources and functions; these include the staffing implications of the transfers. Decisions have yet to be made on the financial arrangements in the event of any redundancies.

  School Rolls
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current total school rolls at(a) primary and (b) secondary level; and what forecast he has made of school rolls at primary and secondary level in (i) five and (ii) 10 years time. [10944]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Primary enrolemnts

  Secondary enrolements

  1995–96 (actual)

  185,413

  150,888

  2000–01 (projected)

  173,721

  154,223

  2005–06 (projected)1

  n/a

  n/a

  1 School population projections are made only for seven years beyond actual enrolments.

  Motor Cyclist Fatalities
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to record and publish the age of motor cyclist fatalities and the size of motor cycle involved. [11201]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of motor cyclist fatalities, broken down by age and gender, is published in the Royal Ulster Constabulary's "Road Traffic Accident Statistics" annual report. The relevant breakdown by age from the 1995 report is given below.

  The size of the motorcycles involved in the fatalities are not currently published although the following categories are held on the RUC traffic database and are available on request: moped, motorcycle under 125cc and motorcycle 125cc or above. It is not the intention to publish this as a separate entry.

  Road users killed and injured, by age 1995

  Pedestrians

  Drivers of motor vehicles

  Motor cyclists

  Pedal cyclists

  Age

  K

  I

  K

  I

  K

  I

  K

  I

  Under 5

  1

  115

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  5–10

  4

  263

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  109

  11–15

  4

  204

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  82

  16–19

  3

  97

  4

  421

  —

  31

  —

  23

  20–24

  —

  77

  10

  948

  1

  65

  —

  29

  25–34

  3

  114

  12

  1,757

  2

  64

  1

  65

  35–44

  6

  69

  6

  1,052

  3

  35

  —

  28

  557

  Road users killed and injured, by age 1995

  Pedestrians

  Drivers of motor vehicles

  Motor cyclists

  Pedal cyclists

  Age

  K

  I

  K

  I

  K

  I

  K

  I

  45–54

  3

  67

  4

  650

  1

  17

  1

  14

  55–59

  2

  24

  2

  189

  —

  3

  —

  8

  60–64

  6

  25

  3

  119

  —

  2

  —

  6

  65 and over

  15

  127

  7

  261

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Totals

  47

  1,182

  48

  5,400

  8

  240

  4

  381

  Passengers1

  Pillion passengers

  Drivers and passengers of "other" vehicles

  Total

  Age

  K

  I

  K

  I

  K

  I

  K

  I

  Under 5

  5

  210

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  337

  5–10

  3

  346

  —

  2

  —

  —

  8

  720

  11–15

  1

  346

  —

  1

  —

  6

  5

  643

  16–19

  5

  613

  —

  3

  —

  7

  12

  1,195

  20–24

  6

  665

  —

  10

  —

  3

  18

  1,797

  25–34

  5

  951

  1

  8

  —

  22

  24

  3,001

  35–44

  1

  399

  —

  —

  —

  6

  16

  1,589

  45–54

  3

  306

  —

  —

  —

  3

  12

  1,057

  55–59

  2

  111

  —

  —

  —

  6

  6

  341

  60–64

  —

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  262

  65 and over

  5

  241

  —

  —

  —

  3

  29

  639

  Totals

  36

  4,298

  1

  24

  —

  56

  144

  11,581

  1 Includes pedal cycle passengers.

  Northern Ireland Water
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to privatise Northern Ireland water. [11167]

  Mr. Moss
  Privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland remains the Government's ultimate goal, although it is not practicable for several years. As an interim step, the Water Service has been established as an executive agency from 1 April 1996 which will enable it to improve its commercial orientation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the changes he has made in the financial provision for the headquarters administration of non-departmental public bodies. [10984]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The planned provision for administration for the main non-departmental public bodies is expected to fall overall by about 2 per cent. next year compared with the previous 1997–98 plans. I expect these reductions to be absorbed through improved efficiency, without affecting services.

  Central Appointments Unit Central Register
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a copy of the central appointments 558
  unit central register has been made available to (i) the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield and (ii) the Irish Government. [11199]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No. The list has never been made available to the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat or to the Irish Government.

  Libraries Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the budget for libraries in cash and constant price terms for 1996–97 and 1997–98; what consequences this will have for the provision of services; and if he will make a statement. [10982]

  Mr. Ancram
  Each education and library board receives a block grant and decides on the resources which the library service should be given having regard to the Government's priorities. The budget for libraries in 199697 is £25.139 million and the boards will submit their proposals for 1997–98 expenditure to the Department for approval by 31 January.

  In its announcement on funding for the education service, the Government have made it clear that they intend that schools, and the classroom in particular, should continue to receive priority, but in giving priority to the classroom some reductions in provision are assumed for the library service which may include a cut equivalent to £1.9 million or 50 per cent. of the budget for book purchasing for public libraries compared with 1996–97. However, the precise effect on the library service cannot be measured until the budget figures have been agreed.

  Air Freight
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent to which the present level of air freight services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain meets the needs of Northern Ireland industry; and if he will make a statement. [10954]

  Mr. Ancram
  A comprehensive assessment of the extent to which the present level of air freight services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain meets the needs of Northern Ireland industry has not been made. The present level of air freight services has not been raised as a general issue of concern by local industry.

  Marches and Parades
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of policing marches and parades during 1996. [10978]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Marches and parades are largely policed as part of normal police duties, and separate costings are not held centrally; where the public order situation demands, it may be necessary to deploy additional resources, and so incur additional costs. Costs arising from the main marching season in 1996 have been estimated at some £13 million.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to fluoridate Northern Ireland's drinking water. [11168]

  Mr. Moss
  All four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland have sought approval to proceed with proposals to have the water supplies for their resident populations fluoridated. I am currently considering these requests with a view to making a recommendation to my right hon. and learned Friend in the very near future.

  Gallaher Ltd.
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government assistance has been given to the cigarette manufacturers Gallaher Ltd. in support of the relocation of its factory in Hyde, Tameside to Ballymena in Northern Ireland. [11162]

  Mr. Ancram
  Gallaher Ltd. has been offered grant assistance amounting to £9,957,000 towards its rationalisation and investment costs of £46.5 million in Northern Ireland.

  Personalised Number Plates (Executive Agencies)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11410]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

TRANSPORT

  Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the implementation date for the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [12261]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am pleased to announce that this Act will be fully in force by 1 June 1997. It will be partially commenced on 1 March to allow regulations to be made in advance. Any person who first passes a British driving test on or after 1 June 1997 will be subject to a two-year probationary period. A driver who incurs six or more penalty points on the licence from offences committed before the end of that period will lose entitlement to a full driving licence and revert to learner status until passing another driving test, theory and practical.

  Rail Services (West Coast Line)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains travelling along the west coast line to London Euston from Coventry were diverted via Northampton, for the last three months that figures are available; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of the total number of trains running on the service. [11010]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the train operators concerned and the information is not available in the exact form requested. In the period 13 October 1996 to 24 December 1996 inclusive, of 2,004 InterCity West Coast London and West Midlands services run to London 560
  Euston on Mondays to Saturdays, 42.2 per cent.—were diverted via Northampton.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains travelling along the west coast line to(a) London Euston, (b) Birmingham and (c) Coventry (i) failed to arrive at the time advertised in the timetable and (ii) were delayed by more than 15 minutes, in the last three months for which figures are available; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of the total number of trains running on the service. [11009]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the train operators concerned. Most of the data requested for InterCity West Coast's train services are given in the table, except where it is not available in that form.

  Reliability and punctuality for InterCity West Coast train services (London and the West Midlands) 13 October-24 December 1996 inclusive

  Euston

  Services to Birmingham

  Coventry

  Number of trains run

  2,004

  2,014

  2,058

  Number (percentage) of trains run which arrived at time advertised

  1,224 (61)

  1,123 (56)

  831 (40)

  Number (percentage) of trains run which arrived within one to 10 minutes of time advertised

  443 (22)

  490 (24)

  809 (39)

  Number (percentage) of trains run which arrived more than 10 minutes after time advertised1

  337 (17)

  401 (20)

  418 (20)

  All data given relate to Monday to Saturday services; data for Sunday services are not readily available.

  All percentages are rounded to nearest whole point.

  1 Data are not readily available on services arriving more than 15 minutes after the time advertised.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisation his Department consulted over the implementation of the new compulsory basic training regulations for motor cyclists. [11458]

  Mr. Bowis
  The organisations listed were sent a copy of the August 1995 consultation paper which first announced the proposed change.

  Approved Driving Instructors National Joint Council

  Associations of Chief Police Officers (England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland)

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers

  Association of London Boroughs Road Safety Officers

  Association of London Authorities

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Automobile Association

  British Motorcyclists Federation

  Chartered Institute of Transport

  City of London Police

  Civil Service Motoring Association Ltd.

  Community Transport Association London

  Community Transport Services

  Confederation of British Industry

  561

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  County Road Safety Officer's Association

  Disabled Drivers' Association

  Disabled Drivers' Motor Club

  Disabled Motorists Federation

  Driving Instructors Association

  General and Municipal Workers' Union

  Guild of Experienced Motorists

  Institute of Advanced Motorists

  Institute of Professional Driving Examiners

  Institute of Road Safety Officers

  Joint Action Group on Motorcycle Training

  Justices' Clerks Society

  Learn and Live Campaign

  London Boroughs Association

  Magistrates Association

  Motorcycle Action Group

  Motorcycle Industry Association Ltd.

  Motorcycle Retailers Association

  Motor Schools Association of Great Britain Ltd.

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Council of Inland Transport

  National Farmers Union

  National Farmers Union of Scotland

  National Union of Civil and Public Servants

  Office of the Commissioner of The Police for the Metropolis

  Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety

  Royal Scottish Automobile Club

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Trades Union Congress—Economic and Social Affairs Department

  Transport and General Workers Union

  Transport Association

  United Road Transport Union

  Approved Motorcycle Training Organisations—408

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice organisations, consulted on the CBT regulation for motor cyclists, gave as to the amount of time needed for rider training agencies to train and test those motor cyclists and moped riders who are affected by the recent change in legislation. [11459]

  Mr. Bowis
  Consultees did not know the number that would be directly affected by the change, but some motor cycle industry bodies supported giving a year's notice before the change was implemented. In the light of these representations, we deferred implementation for six months until 1 January 1997, 17 months after the change was originally proposed.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures were taken to publicise the changes in the CBT regulations; what information was given; when it was disseminated; and to which bodies. [11460]

  Mr. Bowis
  Advice about the change was included in the Department of Transport's factsheet about motor cycling from February 1996, "The Driving Test" handbook from July, "The Motorcycling Manual" handbook from October, leaflets issued with driving licences since August and with vehicle tax renewals from 562
  October. Meetings were held with motor cycle industry representatives in March and July to discuss publicity arrangements. A leaflet was prepared and bulk copies supplied in May to motor cycle dealers, trainers and road safety officers. Copies were also supplied to motor insurance companies. Advice was sent to organisations teaching the "knowledge" to learner London taxi drivers in August and October. There has been considerable coverage on the television, including a piece during prime time in September, and in the national newspapers and the specialist press. Letters were sent at the start of December to some 283,000 registered keepers of small motor cycles and mopeds. We recognised that many of these would be unaffected as they held a full licence or had already taken CBT, but the letter would provide guidance were others to wish to use the motor bikes.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extra resources his Department has made available to deal with the number of people needing to take their CBT. [11461]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport does not directly provide CBT courses. These are provided by approved training bodies which may be commercial organisations, voluntary bodies or local authorities.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for further consultations relating to improving safety for learner motor cyclists; and if he will allow an additional three-month period for existing riders who do not have CBT to undertake training without having their licence revoked. [11462]

  Mr. Bowis
  In October we consulted interested parties about measures to improve safety for learner motor cyclists and we are currently considering the responses. I have no plans to reintroduce a distinction in CBT rules between those who obtained their licence before 1 December 1990 and those who obtained their licence after.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will repeal the one-year ban on learner motor cyclists who fail to pass their full test within two years of being granted a provisional licence. [11463]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 12 November 1996,Official Report, column 115.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further changes to the motor cyclist licensing requirements he proposes to introduce; and what form these will take. [11464]

  Mr. Bowis
  A wide-ranging consultation paper about motor cycle training was issued in October 1996 and I shall consider possible changes to training in the light of responses.

  Land Compensation Act 1973
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the Land Compensation Act 1973 to lay a statutory duty on county councils to invite individual claims for compensation from persons whose property may be diminished in value by physical factors arising out of public infrastructure works. [11878]
  563
  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The interdepartmental working group on blight is currently looking at a range of issues related to losses arising during the various stages of major infrastructure development. I will look with care at any recommendations for changes to legislation which it may make.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held recently with his EU counterparts regarding the future of UNIDO. [11892]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Officials from EU missions met last week in Vienna in order to make a preliminary assessment of UNIDO's core activities. The conclusions of the group will be considered by the EU working group on the UN in Brussels on 23 January.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons he commissioned an Overseas Development Administration report on UNIDO in 1996; and what was the cost of that report. [11894]

  Dr. Fox
  We commissioned an external assessment of UNIDO's policies and performance in order to help us reach a view on its continued relevance and value as a development agency. The assessment cost £75,500.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding UNIDO. [11891]

  Dr. Fox
  Following the announcement on 9 December of our intention to withdraw from UNIDO, we have received communications from the chair of the G77 and China in New York, the representative of the British staff in UNIDO and the Federation of International Civil Servants' Associations. Four letters from hon. Members of this House have also been received.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the value of the work of UNIDO. [11893]

  Dr. Fox
  As we made clear in our letter of withdrawal to the Secretary-General of the UN, and in a parallel letter to the Director-General of UNIDO, we recognise the value of some of the work of UNIDO but have concluded that there is no longer a case for a separate UN institution for industrial development. We believe this work should be carried out in a more broadly based UN development agency.

  Angola
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of the peace process in Angola. [11841]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The peace process is at a crucial stage. During her recent visit, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development urged the Angolan Government and UNITA to complete the outstanding provisions of the Lusaka protocol. We hope that a Government of unity and national reconciliation will be formed on 25 January.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reasons for UNAVEM III's withdrawal—the United Nationals Angola verification mission—from Angola. [11842]

  Dr. Fox
  UN Security Council resolution 976 of 8 February 1995, which authorised the establishment of UNAVEM III, envisaged completion of its mandate by February 1997. The Security Council's decision in resolution 1087 of 11 December 1996 to authorise the gradual and progressive withdrawal of UNAVEM reflected the recent positive steps in the peace process including the UN Secretary-General's special representative's declaration in December 1996 that UNITA had completed its military commitments under the Lusaka protocol.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he makes of the effect of the withdrawal of UNAVEM III on the peace process in Angola. [11843]

  Dr. Fox
  We are working with other Security Council members to ensure that UNAVEM III and any successor UN presence remains in place for long enough to safeguard the success of the peace process.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government to(a) the Government of Bangladesh and (b) (i) British and (ii) international non-governmental organisations working in Bangladesh to assist the Biharis in Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement. [11247]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Since 1990, Her Majesty's Government have provided bilateral assistance totalling £770,000 for health and education projects involving Bihari communities in Bangladesh. As part of the Overseas Development Administration's support for the fourth health and population project of the Government of Bangladesh, £164,596 has been spent in support of reproductive health and child nutrition activities by the Al-Falah model clinic in the Geneva camp. Through ODA's joint funding scheme, the British non-governmental organisation Concern Worldwide had received £607,957 for primary education projects.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Accord Information Technology System
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated(a) start-up costs and (b) annual costs for the new accord information technology system. [10513]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not yet available as work to define the new systems has not yet reached the stage where service providers can submit technical solutions, and thus predict costs.

  Income Support
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of error in the calculation of income support for mortgage interest payments were identified in the 1994 review of such cases; and what was the average and total amount of error involved. [10815]

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

  Estimated cost/saving and numbers gaining from reducing the family credit taper (1997–98)

  Taper

  Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Income support/jobseeker's allowance (income-based)

  Net cost

  Number of gainers

  60 per cent.

  +£290 million

  -£20 million

  -£5 million

  -£5 million

  + 260 million

  585,000

  50 per cent.

  +£730 million

  -£40 million

  -£10 million

  -£5 million

  + 675 million

  770,000

  1. Estimates are based on the 1994–95 family resources survey, uprated to 1997–98 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Estimates of costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. Estimates of gainers are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the savings to his Department resulting from each of the changes to(a) restrict the amount of housing benefit payable on rents above the local reference level of 50 per cent. of the difference, (b) calculate housing benefit on the basis of single room rent levels for people aged under 25 years and (c) introduce payment of housing benefit in arrears. [10974]

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

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Restricting the amount of housing benefit payable on rents above the local reference level of 50 per cent.

  58

  113

  141

  Calculating housing benefit on the basis of single room rent levels for people aged under 25

  13

  57

  62

  Paying housing benefit in arrears

  105

  120

  75

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit payable to claimants (i) with earnings from employment, (ii) also receiving family credit and (iii) also receiving disability working allowance. [10975]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is as follows:566
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Denham, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking, how many cases of error in the calculation of Income Support for mortgage interest payments were identified in the 1994 review of such cases; and what was the average and total amount of error involved.
  As a result of the National Audit Office report a full review of the housing cost element of all Income Support cases was undertaken in 1994.
  At the end of June 1995 the review exercise had identified 308,590 cases in error, the total value being £85,505,632. Of that £77,865,018 were overpayments and £7,640,614 underpayments. Therefore the average value of error was £277.08.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers gaining from reducing the family credit taper to (i) 60 per cent. and (ii) 50 per cent. [10989]

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

  Average amount of housing benefit/council tax benefit (May 1995)

  Housing benefit £

  Council tax benefit £

  With earnings from employment

  31.99

  4.98

  Also receiving family credit

  30.98

  4.49

  Also receiving disability working allowance

  27.81

  5.33

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system, 1 per cent, annual sample inquiry for housing benefits/council tax benefits recipients not in receipt of income support, for Great Britain taken at the end of May 1995.

  Note:

  This analysis has only provided the weekly amount of benefit for those who do not also receive income support. There are cases where housing benefit/council tax benefit recipients with income support who also have earnings from employment, family credit and disability working allowance.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the most recently available figure for the housing benefit live load in each district of Northamptonshire; and what are the costs involved. [11076]

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

  Northamptonshire local authority district

  Number of housing benefit recipients (1995–96 average)

  Housing benefit expenditure costs (1995–96) £

  Corby

  5,230

  8,964,000

  Daventy

  2,860

  5,091,000

  567

  Northamptonshire local authority district

  Number of housing benefit recipients (1995–96 average)

  Housing benefit expenditure costs (1995–96) £

  East Northants

  3,690

  6,949,000

  Kettering

  4,680

  9,778,000

  Northampton

  14,030

  30,549,000

  South Northants

  2,710

  5,563,000

  Wellingborough

  4,720

  8,639,000

  Sources:

  1. DSS local authority expenditure claim forms.

  2. Department of the Environment local authority expenditure claim forms.

  3. DSS housing benefit management information system.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a month by month breakdown of the benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency from April 1994 to the latest month available using the same headings as in his answer of 19 July 1995,Official Report, columns 501–502. [9961]

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

  Benefit savings—1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  (£ million)

  Category of benefit savings

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total 1994–95

  Resulting from pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care

  10.00

  10.00

  10.00

  10.00

  10.59

  10.23

  10.42

  9.84

  10.41

  10.16

  8.76

  9.11

  119.52

  Paid through Agency collection service to SoS

  1.25

  1.10

  0.99

  0.93

  0.71

  0.68

  0.46

  -0.011

  0.34

  0.51

  0.031

  0.006

  6.996

  Resulting from CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care

  0.80

  0.80

  0.80

  0.80

  1.46

  1.37

  1.13

  1.23

  1.01

  1.08

  1.29

  1.99

  13.76

  Paid through Agency collection service to SoS

  1.78

  1.82

  2.36

  3.08

  3.43

  3.75

  3.53

  4.30

  3.88

  4.52

  5.85

  9.65

  47.95

  Deductions from absent parent's IS payments

  0.037

  0.045

  0.052

  0.11

  0.20

  0.17

  0.23

  0.30

  0.24

  0.17

  0.37

  0.46

  2.384

  Income support claim cessations:

  Maintenance exceeds rate of benefit

  1.66

  1.23

  2.36

  4.24

  2.33

  1.60

  1.31

  2.62

  1.52

  1.57

  1.85

  1.55

  23.84

  Income support claim withdrawn within four weeks of CSA action

  18.80

  19.92

  21.14

  14.90

  15.40

  16.45

  17.26

  17.13

  11.15

  13.81

  15.10

  18.47

  199.53

  Reductions in Family Credit or Disability Working Allwoance resulting from CSA assessments

  Monthly breakdown not available

  12.84

  Housing Benefit/Council Tax reductions resulting from CSA assessments

  Monthly breakdown not available

  52.25

  Total

  34.327

  34.915

  37.702

  34.06

  34.12

  34.25

  34.34

  35.409

  28.55

  31.82

  33.251

  41.236

  479.07

  568
  Letter from A. Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency benefit savings.
  In my reply to you of 12 June 1995, Official Report, col 492, I gave a breakdown of the benefit savings collected from 1 April 1994 up to 31 March 1995. I then wrote to you on 22 November 1995, Official Report, col 231–232, where I gave updated figures to 30 September 1995. In my further reply of 7 December 1995, Official Report, col 435–438, I provided a month by month breakdown of benefit savings for the period 1 April 1994 to 30 September 1995.
  In preparing this response, it has become apparent that some figures previously quoted now require amendment. The attached tables show the revisions where necessary, covering the full period specified in your question. In 1995/95, Departmental statisticians examined benefit savings arising from reductions in Family Credit as a result of CSA assessments, and from the withdrawal of Income Support claims within four weeks of CSA action. They concluded that in each case the savings were being under counted. As a consequence, it has been necessary to make retrospective adjustments to the 1995/96 figures in those two categories.
  You should also note that 1995/96 and 1996/97 figures for Family Credit and Housing Benefit are now available on a month by month basis. (This was not the case for 1994/95.)
  I hope this is helpful.
  569

  Benefit savings—1 April 1994 to 31 March 1996

  (£ million)

  Category of benefit savings

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total 1995–96

  Resulting from pre-CSA assessment:

  Paid through Agency collection service to SoS

  0.25

  0.19

  0.29

  0.40

  0.21

  0.24

  0.24

  0.16

  0.10

  0.25

  0.41

  0.05

  2.79

  Resulting from CSA and pre-CSA assessment:

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care

  10.67

  11.19

  10.83

  11.08

  11.19

  10.74

  10.78

  10.31

  10.21

  10.20

  9.49

  10.09

  126.78

  Resulting from CSA assessment:

  Paid through Agency collection service to SoS

  4.11

  5.58

  5.36

  4.73

  5.16

  5.21

  4.68

  6.68

  5.24

  7.98

  5.88

  7.51

  68.12

  Deductions from absent parent's IS payments

  0.45

  0.87

  0.73

  0.68

  0.72

  0.73

  -1.41

  0.33

  0.28

  0.24

  0.29

  0.41

  4.32

  Income Support claim cessations:

  Maintenance exceeds rate of benefit

  0.96

  0.75

  0.62

  0.63

  0.77

  0.57

  0.71

  0.73

  0.48

  0.84

  0.48

  0.54

  8.08

  Income Support claim withdrawn within four weeks of CSA action

  14.55

  16.97

  16.87

  13.85

  14.99

  17.09

  18.73

  18.80

  10.33

  13.08

  13.35

  12.09

  180.70

  Reductions in Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance resulting from CSA assessments

  3.00

  3.07

  3.36

  2.88

  2.80

  3.39

  3.78

  3.82

  2.15

  3.73

  3.80

  4.18

  39.96

  Housing Benefit/Council Tax reductions resulting from CSA assessments

  4.91

  5.86

  5.88

  4.69

  5.16

  5.93

  6.40

  6.45

  3.58

  4.50

  4.63

  4.19

  62.18

  Total

  38.90

  44.48

  43.94

  38.94

  41.00

  43.90

  43.91

  47.28

  32.37

  40.82

  38.33

  39.06

  492.93

  Benefit savings—1 April 1996 to 30 November 1996 (£ million, rounded to two decimal points)

  Category of benefit savings

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  October 1996

  November 1996

  1996–97 YTD

  Resulting from pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid through Agency collection service to SoS

  0.07

  0.07

  0.07

  0.04

  0.07

  0.05

  0.07

  0.05

  0.48

  Resulting from CSA and pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by absent parent to parent with care

  9.65

  10.00

  9.65

  9.94

  9.98

  9.43

  9.35

  8.87

  76.87

  Resulting from CSA assessments:

  Paid through Agency collection service to SoS

  7.12

  7.57

  7.33

  8.09

  7.23

  7.80

  8.88

  7.88

  61.89

  Deductions from absent parent's I S payments

  0.20

  0.33

  0.34

  0.32

  0.50

  0.41

  0.48

  0.65

  3.23

  Income support claim cessations:

  Maintenance exceeds rate of benefit

  0.44

  0.47

  0.35

  0.52

  0.40

  0.50

  0.69

  0.56

  3.92

  Income support claim withdrawn within four weeks of CSA action

  10.35

  13.01

  11.70

  12.33

  12.75

  13.56

  16.94

  14.37

  105.00

  Reductions in family credit or disability working allowance resulting from CSA assessments

  4.00

  4.16

  3.52

  3.78

  3.32

  4.33

  5.09

  4.58

  32.80

  Housing benefit/council tax reductions resulting from CSA assessments

  3.61

  4.46

  4.02

  4.17

  4.35

  4.71

  5.80

  4.93

  36.04

  Total

  35.43

  40.07

  36.98

  39.18

  38.59

  40.79

  47.28

  41.89

  320.21

  Due to rounding, in-month figures do not necessarily sum exactly to in-month or year-to-date totals.
  570 571
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the figures on revenue collected by the Child Support Agency in his answer of 29 November 1995,Official Report, columns 742–43, with reference to the latest available data and indicating for each month since 1995, (a) the amount of revenue demanded attributable to type A interim assessments and (b) the amount offsetting state funds. [9965]

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

  Letter from A. Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about that element of child support maintenance that is paid via the Agency.
  The available information on maintenance scheduled for payment and collected by the Agency is set out in the attached table, together with how much of the maintenance collected by the Agency each month has offset benefit spending.
  In addition, between October 1995 and March 1996, £76.89 million arising from Agency assessments was paid directly between parents who do not use the Agency's collection service. The figure for the current financial year, to the end of November 1996, is £95.68 million.
  Information on the amount of revenue attributable to Type 'A' interim maintenance assessments is not currently available.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex A: Maintenance scheduled for payment and collected by the agency

  £ million

  Assessed and scheduled for payments via Agency collection service

  Paid Agency collection service

  Amount collected via Agency which offsets benefit spending

  1995–96

  October

  39.63

  11.81

  4.67

  November

  39.30

  11.86

  6.68

  December

  45.55

  11.22

  5.24

  January

  38.41

  14.89

  7.98

  February

  38.21

  13.69

  5.88

  March

  33.93

  14.85

  7.51

  Total, October 1995 to March 1996

  235.03

  78.32

  37.96

  1996–97

  April

  39.44

  16.80

  7.12

  May

  43.01

  18.42

  7.57

  June

  34.28

  17.15

  7.33

  July

  36.04

  19.67

  8.09

  August

  37.64

  19.15

  7.22

  September

  33.46

  19.67

  7.80

  1October

  24.49

  21.50

  8.88

  November

  20.52

  21.67

  7.88

  Total, year to date 1996–97

  268.88

  2154.03

  61.89

  1 From October 1996 the functionality of Child support computer system was enhanced; figures no longer include suspended maintenance amounts.

  2 Excludes amounts for unobligated, unassigned and future pay.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments have been made during the recent cold spell to recipients in Northamptonshire. [11786]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Sir Peter Fry, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question requesting information on how many Cold Weather Payments have been made during the recent cold spell to recipients in Northamptonshire.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are kept for Benefits Agency (BA) Districts and not by regions. The Northamptonshire District consists of the BA offices at Northampton, Corby and Wellingborough.
  During the recent cold spell 51,611 automatic payments were issued to those customers covered by the Northamptonshire District.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the meetings he held between 21 November and 19 December 1996 with individuals and organisations making representations for or against proposals to ban aerial shells and similar fireworks from general sale to the public. [11041]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 16 January 1997]: In addition to considering a large volume of representations relating to aerial shells, I met two representatives form the firework industry between 21 November and 19 December.

  Carpet Sales (Measurement)
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he introduced legislation requiring carpets to be sold only by the square metre. [11770]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Price Marking Order 1991 was amended in 1994 by the Price Marking (Amendment) Order 1994 to require the unit price of products sold by area to be given by reference to the square metre. The unit price may also be given in imperial units, provided that they are not displayed more prominently than the metric units.

  Out-of-town Supermarkets
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on small,independent traders of the increase in the number of out-of-town supermarkets. [11957]

  Mr. Page
  The number of small retailers has declined in recent years, with some of this reduction being the result of the increase in out-of-town shopping facilities.
  573
  However, the Government have taken steps to assist small retailers in many ways, including through tougher retail planning policy guidelines, help with inner-city regeneration and security such as closed circuit television, and the general measures of deregulation and support for small firms. Many small retailers have also shown that they are able to compete and succeed in competition with bigger retailers.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to implement a telecommunications key escrow in the United Kingdom. [12018]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As stated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 10 June 1996,Official Report, columns 13–14, I published a paper outlining Government policy on the provision of encryption services on public networks.

  Officials within my Department are currently preparing a more detailed consultation paper which we intend to publish early this year. A consultation period will precede proposals for legislation.

  EU Funding
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total payments made to the UK under the European Union's European regional development fund and the European social fund in each year since 1988. [11789]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: Payments made to the UK under the European Union's European regional development fund and European social fund in each year since 1988 are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  ERDF

  ESF

  1988

  369

  272

  1989

  347

  406

  1990

  440

  225

  1991

  370

  618

  1992

  556

  437

  1993

  425

  589

  1994

  608

  321

  1995

  436

  756

  19961

  822

  805

  1 1996 figures are forecasts, earlier years are outturn.

  Inward Investment
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that have been created directly and indirectly as a result of direct inward investment into the United Kingdom since 1979, or since some later date in respect of which an estimate can be made. [11490

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 17 January 1997]: According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau for the financial years 1979 to 1996,
  574
  over 366,000 new jobs are associated with decisions to invest in the UK. The Department does not have complete and accurate information on the additional number of indirect jobs created as a result of inward investment over this period.

WALES

  Grants to Businesses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the value of grants awarded to(a) inward investors, (b) existing indigenous Welsh companies and (c) new indigenous Welsh companies in the last three years for each constituency in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [11184]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Regional selective assistance is the main form of grant aid available for companies wishing to pursue investment projects in Wales. The following table lists the value of RSA grant paid to United Kingdom owned and foreign owned companies between January 1994 and December 1996, for those constituencies which lie either wholly or partly within the assisted area. The figures include residual grant payments to projects which are located in area which are no longer assisted, following the revision of the assisted area map in August 1993.

  Value of RSA payments (£)

  Constituency

  UK owned

  Foreign owned

  Aberavon

  732,591

  2,545,000

  Alyn and Deeside

  5,489,725

  4,497,500

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,482,655

  3,156,425

  Brecon and Radnor

  1,000,259

  —

  Bridgend

  685,500

  1,710,000

  Caernarfon

  541,500

  280,000

  Caephilly

  5,407,500

  1,402,500

  Cardiff Central

  2,237,095

  1,370,000

  Cardiff North

  551,696

  125,000

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  678,220

  12,000

  Cardiff West

  27,500

  —

  Carmarthen

  253,000

  —

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  171,000

  587,500

  Clwyd North West

  3,016,500

  —

  Clwyd South West

  502,800

  1,753,095

  Conwy

  358,000

  86,000

  Cynon Valley

  2,017,730

  410,760

  Delyn

  3,779,135

  2,095,000

  Gower

  80,945

  1,840,956

  Islwyn

  2,538,000

  12,227,210

  Llanelli

  1,183,320

  1,981,668

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  351,000

  540,000

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  4,076,986

  2,498,000

  Monmouth

  650,000

  1,479,500

  Neath

  1,206,738

  1,500,000

  Newport East

  4,363,690

  3,488,000

  Newport West

  585,000

  612,000

  Ogmore

  3,926,820

  9,271,250

  Pembroke

  1,075,875

  329,500

  Pontypridd

  5,482,750

  9,824,286

  Rhondda

  2,316,500

  232,500

  Swansea East

  1,539,258

  193,000

  Swansea West

  836,500

  863,000

  Torfaen

  4,857,500

  1,089,000

  Vale of Glamorgan

  205,313

  6,172,000

  Wrexham

  3,737,176

  3,195,000

  Ynys Mon

  3,388,500

  1,516,030

  Total

  79,334,277

  78,883,680

  575
  Other forms of financial assistance are available, including Mid Wales Development grant which is administered by local authorities in the area covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many cases of (i) A, (ii) B, (iii) C and (iv) Y-type meningitis were diagnosed in Wales last year; and how many were fatal; [9758]

  (2) how many cases of (i) A, (ii) B, (iii) C and (iv) Y-type meningitis within the Bro Taf health authority area (a) were diagnosed last year, (b) have occurred in the current year to date and (c) were fatal in each year. [9759]

  Mr. Hague
  A total of 251 cases of meningococcal disease were reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre, Wales in 1996, of which 138 were meningococcal meningitis and 113 were meningococcal septicaemia.

  Data from the meningococcal reference laboratory on the typing of cases from Wales are available only to 12 December 1996. They are shown in the following table for the 115 samples which were referred.

  Meningococcal Reference Laboratory (Manchester PHL) data reported to CDSC Colindale for isolates of Neisseria meningitides from Wales (to 12 December 1996)

  Organism

  Number

  Type A

  0

  Type B

  68

  Type C

  42

  Type Y

  1

  Other

  4

  Unknown

  0

  Total

  115

  Ninety-seven cases of meningitis and meningococcal septicaemia were reported to Bro Taf health authority between 1 January 1996 and 8 January 1997 as shown in the following table.

  Cases of meningitis and meningococcal septicaemia in Bro Taf 1 January 1996 to 8 January 1997

  Type

  Number

  Group A—laboratory data

  0

  Group B—laboratory data

  8

  Group C—laboratory data

  4

  Ungrouped

  16

  Unknown

  69

  Total

  97

  1. Data from Bro Taf health authority infection control unit.

  2. Laboratories and clinicians are encouraged to report promptly, before sub-typing is necessarily known.

  3. In some cases sub-typing is not possible.

  4. Data for period 1 January 1996 to 31 March 1996 are combined data for Mid and South Glamorgan health authorities.

  Laboratories do not know whether a case has resulted in fatality. Fatalities would normally be around 10 per cent, of cases. However, data notified to the Office for National Statistics based on death certificates report one death in 1995 and one during the period January to June 1996.
  576
  The latest available Office for National Statistics data, taken from death certificates, are as follows:

  Fatalities from meningococcal infection (including meningococcal meningitis and meningococcal septicaemia)

  Year

  Bro Taf

  Wales

  1995

  2

  8

  1996 to end June

  0

  5

  North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to meet representatives of the North Wales health authority to discuss revenue funding for the proposed north Wales cancer treatment centre; [11207]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the ability of North Wales health authority to fund the revenue costs of the proposed cancer treatment centre. [11205]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the health authority. Welsh Office officials are discussing revenue funding with the health authority and an announcement will be made shortly.

  North Wales Ambulance Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the performance targets set for the North Wales Ambulance Service. [11670]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The standard set for Conwy, Gwynedd and the Isle of Anglesey is that in response to a 999 call an emergency ambulance should arrive at the scene of the incident within eight minutes for 50 per cent. of calls and within 21 minutes for 95 per cent. The corresponding times for Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham are eight minutes and 18 minutes.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of general practitioners who are fundholders in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [11673]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Fifty-two per cent. of general practitioners in Wales are fundholders covering 52 per cent. of the population.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Cergy (Full Incumbents)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy enjoying full incumbent status are aged(a) over 70 years and (b) over 80 years. [11073]

  Mr. Alison
  At 31 December 1996, there were 31 ministers of incumbent status aged 70 or over, of whom 12 were aged 80 or over.

  Suffragan Bishops
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners if he will list(a) those suffragan bishops for whose salaries the

  577
  commissioners are responsible, with their dates of appointments, (b) such suffragan sees as are currently vacant and (c) those assistant bishops for whose salaries the commissioners are responsible. [11071]

  Mr. Alison
  The suffragan and full-time assistant bishops whose stipends the commissioners are empowered to pay and their dates of appointment are as follows:

  See

  Suffragan see

  Bishop's name

  Date of appointment

  Birmingham

  Aston

  John Austin

  3 September 1992

  Blackburn

  Burnley

  Martyn Jarrett

  2 February 1994

  Lancaster

  John Nicholls

  25 April 1990

  Bristol

  Swindon

  Michael Doe

  29 September 1994

  Canterbury

  Dover

  Richard Llewellin

  9 October 1992

  Maidstone

  Gavin Reid

  9 October 1992

  Ebbsfleet

  John Richards

  29 April 1994

  Richborough

  Edwin Barnes

  20 July 1995

  Carlisle

  Penrith

  Richard Garrard

  21 September 1994

  Chelmsford

  Barking

  Roger Sainsbury

  17 January 1991

  Colchester

  Edward Holland

  5 January 1995

  Bradwell

  Laurie Green

  23 February 1993

  Chester

  Birkenhead

  Michael Langrish

  2 March 1993

  Stockport

  Geoffrey Turner

  21 September 1994

  Chichester

  Horsham

  Lindsay Urwin

  30 November 1993

  Coventry

  Warwick

  Anthony Priddis

  3 July 1996

  Derby

  Repton

  Henry Richmond

  30 January 1986

  Durham

  Jarrow

  Alan Smithson

  21 September 1990

  Ely

  Huntingdon

  John Flack

  8 January 1997

  Exeter

  Crediton

  Richard Hawkings

  2 July 1996

  Plymouth

  John Garton

  3 July 1996

  Glucester

  Tewkesbury

  John Went

  25 January 1996

  Gildford

  Dorking

  Ian Brackley

  25 January 1996

  Hereford

  Ludlow

  John Saxbee

  29 April 1994

  Lichfield

  Shrewsbury

  David Hallatt

  22 July 1994

  Stafford

  Christopher Hill

  7 March 1996

  Wolverhampton

  Michael Bourke

  29 September 1993

  Lincoln

  Grantham

  William Ind

  23 October 1987

  Grimsby

  David Tustin

  25 January 1979

  Liverpool

  Warrington

  John Packer

  13 November 1996

  London

  Fulham

  John Broadbent

  25 September 1996

  Kensington

  Michael Colclough

  25 September 1996

  Stepney

  John Sentamu

  25 September 1996

  Willesden

  Graham Dow

  22 May 1992

  Edmonton

  Brian Masters

  20 December 1984

  Manchester

  Hulme

  Colin Scott

  13 September 1984

  Middleton

  Stephen Venner

  2 February 1994

  Bolton

  David Bonser

  13 September 1991

  Newcastle

  Assistant Bishop

  Kenneth Gill

  1 September 1980

  Norwich

  Lynn

  David Conner

  2 February 1994

  Thetford

  Hugo de Waal

  17 January 1992

  Oxford

  Buckingham

  Colin Bennetts

  29 April 1994

  Dorchester

  Anthony Russell

  2 February 1988

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Diocesan bishops

  482,087

  706,433

  494,322

  469,947

  645,155

  660,897

  314,192

  480,653

  732,103

  678,457

  Suffragan and full-time assistant bishops

  136,160

  427,608

  204,161

  684,680

  591,468

  80,323

  2,557

  3,815

  31,113

  27,202

  No new moneys were made available for grants for the housing of suffragan and full-time assistant bishops from 1991.
  578

  See

  Suffragan see

  Bishop's name

  Date of appointment

  Peterborough

  Brixworth

  Paul Barber

  25 January 1989

  Ripon

  Knaresborough

  Malcolm Menin

  2 December 1986

  Rochester

  Tonbridge

  Brian Smith

  2 November 1993

  St. Albans

  Bedford

  John Richardson

  23 February 1994

  Hertford

  Robin Smith

  25 January 1990

  St. Edmunds and Ipswich

  Dunwich

  Tim Stevens

  17 November 1995

  Salisbury

  Ramsbury

  Peter Vaughan

  21 April 1989

  Sherborne

  John Kirkham

  1 December 1976

  Sheffield

  Doncaster

  Michael Gear

  2 March 1993

  Southwark

  Kingston

  Martin Wharton

  3 November 1992

  Woolwich

  Colin Buchanan

  1 December 1996

  Croydon

  Wilfred Wood

  25 July 1985

  Southwell

  Sherwood

  Alan Morgan

  1 September 1989

  Truro

  St. Germans

  Graham James

  23 February 1993

  Wakefield

  Pontefract

  John Finney

  14 May 1993

  Winchester

  Basingstoke

  Geoffrey Rowell

  2 February 1994

  Southampton

  Jonathan Gledhill

  20 November 1996

  Worcester

  Dudley

  Rupert Hoare

  29 September 1993

  York

  Hull

  James Jones

  2 November 1994

  Selby

  Humphrey Taylor

  1 September 1991

  Whitby

  Gordon Bates

  9 June 1983

  Beverley

  John Gaisford

  7 March 1994

  Europe

  in Europe

  Henry Scriven

  9 February 1995

  The following suffragan sees are currently vacant, one of which will be filled by the person named:

  See

  Suffragan See

  Bishop's name

  Bath and Wells

  Taunton

  Not yet announced

  Chichester

  Lewes

  Not yet announced

  Oxford

  Reading

  Canon Dominic Walker

  Bishops (Expenses)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the Church Commissioners' expenditure for the payment of bishops' capital expenses in each year since 1986. [10948]

  Mr. Alison
  The following figures for diocesan bishops' houses, which include both a chapel and office accommodation for bishops' staff, show the total capital expenditure, excluding fees, from 1986 to 1995, the last year for which figures are currently available. The figures, at December 1995 prices, are net of sale proceeds of any surplus property and also include the purchases of property where appropriate.

  As suffragan and full-time assistant bishops' houses are owned by diocesan boards of finance full details of all capital expenditure are not available, but capital grants made by the commissioners are shown.
  579
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the Church Commissioners' expenditure for the payment of bishops' revenue expenses in each year since 1986. [10949]

  Mr. Alison
  The table shows the total revenue expenditure from 1986 to 1995, the last date for which figures are currently available, at December 1995 prices. The figures for diocesan bishops' houses include expenditure on furnishings and gardens, but exclude fees and are net of rental income for accommodation not occupied by bishops.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Diocesan bishops

  1,438,666

  1,325,950

  1,482,657

  1,316,418

  1,616,873

  1,661,259

  1,405,465

  1,487,894

  1,744,283

  1,417,489

  Suffragan and full-time assistant bishops

  172,761

  124,340

  179,326

  189,973

  172,698

  126,810

  113,048

  187,134

  154,205

  206,745

  Bishops' administrative costs

  4,724,549

  5,121,197

  5,439,570

  5,565,365

  6,278,517

  6,718,993

  6,785,396

  7,060,791

  7,199,430

  7,414,000

PRIME MINISTER

  Bletchley Park
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current ownership of Bletchley park. [12031]

  The Prime Minister
  The freehold of Bletchley park is owned in part by the Secretary of State for the Environment and in part by British Telecommunications.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first notified of the current proposals by UK Nirex Ltd. to build a rock characterisation laboratory near Sellafield. [11915]

  The Prime Minister
  I was made aware of the proposals in September 1992. UK Nirex Ltd. made them public in October 1992 when it published a consultative document outlining the rock characterisation facility concept.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10662]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10663]

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

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister how much money to date has been paid to the Australian Government in compensation for the nuclear testing carried out by the United Kingdom in the 1950s; what
  580
  The figures for suffragan and full-time assistant bishops' houses show half of the total expenditure on periodical outgoings e.g. rates, insurance and repairs, the other half of which were borne by dioceses.

  The figures for bishops' administrative costs include their working expenses and staff salaries and pensions, as well as support for the archbishops' appointments secretary, the clergy appointments adviser, the archbishops' adviser for bishops' ministry and the bishops' officer for urban priority areas.

  work Her Majesty's Government are currently carrying out with the Australian authorities in this area; and if he will make a statement. [11455]

  The Prime Minister
  No such compensation has been paid. In 1968, Australia signed an agreement with the UK confirming that the clean-up of all test sites had been completed satisfactorily. However, in the interests of wider Anglo-Australian relations, in 1993, the UK agreed to make an ex gratia payment of £20 million, and now regards the matter as closed.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates he has visited Wales since 10 April 1992 in his official capacity. [12098]

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited Wales on official business on the following occasions since 10 April 1992:

  3–4 September 1992

  11 June 1993

  28 October 1994

  13–14 June 1996

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

HEALTH

  Performance Targets (Ambulance Services)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance targets set for ambulance services. [10366]

  Mr. Horam
  The patients charter standard is that a person dialling 999 for an ambulance can expect it to arrive within 14 minutes in an urban ambulance service area or 19 minutes in a rural service area. In 1992–93 ambulances reached 2 million calls within the patients charter target, and by 1995–96 this had increased to some 2.6 million, which is 91.4 per cent. of emergency calls.

  Mental Health Services
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about mental health services. [10367]

  Mr. Burns
  I have received several representations from various sources including professional bodies and voluntary organisations concerned with the care of mentally ill people. I have meetings with these organisations on a regular basis.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of admissions to psychiatric hospital via court disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last five years. [12037]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on psychiatric admissions to national health service facilities is contained in the Department of Health's statistical bulletin "In-patients formally detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation, England: 1989–90 to 1994–95"—the latest year for which information is available. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many admissions to psychiatric hospitals there were in each of the last five years. [12036]

  Mr. Burns
  The information available centrally relates to admissions under the mental illness specialties in national health service hospitals and is published in tables 5.20 and 5.21 of the publication, "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England: 1996", copies of which are available in the Library.

  GPs' Lists
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the right of general practitioners to remove patients from their list. [10368]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioners' terms of service provide that a doctor may have a person removed from their list. Health authorities have powers to assign patients to a GP if they have difficulty in registering.

  Community Care Services
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of National Mencap to discuss community care services for people with learning disabilities. [10369]

  Mr. Burns
  I met representatives of National Mencap on 21 October 1996 to discuss a number of issues relating to community care.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue a national charter for long-term care. [10370]

  Mr. Burns
  We have no plans to do so.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research projects are currently being funded by his Department involving the use of animals; and what species are involved. [10371]

  Mr. Malone
  Eleven projects involving the use of animals are currently receiving funding from the Department. We have commissioned these projects in response to public health concerns about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, BSE and food poisoning. Those studies chiefly involve the use of mice, but chickens and rabbits are also used. All of these projects conform to the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is administered by the Home Office. I have placed a list of these projects in the Library.

  The Department also supports a range of research activity in the national health service and non-departmental public bodies, some of which involve the use of animals but detailed information on them is not held centrally.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alter the basis of funding of the national health service. [10372]

  Mr. Horam
  None. The Government remain firmly committed to a national health service which is funded mainly from general taxation, and available to all on the basis of clinical need and regardless of ability to pay.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental check-ups were carried out in Berkshire in the last year for which figures are available. [10373]

  Mr. Malone
  During 1995–96, payments for almost 233,000 dental examinations for adults were scheduled in the Berkshire family health services authority.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 166, on categories of treatment relating to dentists' pay (1) what assessment he has made of the breakdown of the (a) adult item of service percentage in the case of the highest earning national health service dentist in 1995–96 and (b) the child item of service percentage in the case of the previous years; and if he will make a statement; [12102]

  (2) for what reasons the gross fee earnings for 1991–92 and 1994–95 indicate no amounts for capitation. [12103]

  Mr. Malone
  The dentist in 1995–96 is a general dental practitioner who has registered patients and receives fees for item of service treatment and registration fees. The dentist in the previous years is a general dental practitioner providing, in the main, orthodontic treatment for patients who have been referred by other general dental practitioners with whom they are registered and who receive capitation payments for them.
  583
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the hon. Member for Pendle's question of 12 December 1996 on national health service dentists' earnings by decile. [12104]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 January 1996.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 220, how many dental (a) assistants and (b) nurses were employed by the highest paid national health service dentists in each year between 1991–92 and 1995–96. [12106]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of dental nurses employed by individual dentists is not available. The information available on the number of dental assistants' is in the table.

  Number of assistants1 employed during the financial year

  Dental assistants1

  1991–92

  3

  1992–93

  3

  1993–94

  3

  1994–95

  3

  1995–96

  6

  1 Assistants are fully qualified dentists, who do not have their own health authority contract number but work on that of a principal.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 220, what were the number of dental practices listed for the highest earning national health service dentists in each year between 1991–92 and 1995–96. [12105]

  Mr. Malone
  To give this information would be in breach of the open government code of practice, which exempts information which could facilitate an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current proposals he has to increase the number of dentists practising in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [10385]

  Mr. Malone
  As announced in the recent White Paper, "Primary Care: Delivering The Future", the Government will make available to health authorities in England funds for selected schemes to improve the availability of general dental services in certain areas.

  Priority will be given to those schemes most likely to have a direct and lasting impact on the availability of national health service dentistry and which offer best value for money.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the advisory committee on xenotransplantation. [10374]

  Mr. Horam
  "Animal Tissue into Humans", the report of the advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation was published on 16 January 1997, together with the Government's response to the report. In our response, we set out our broad agreement with the group's recommendations and the establishment of the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority. Because of the complexity of the issues surrounding 584
  xenotransplantation, we have asked for comments from all interested parties during a three-month consultation period. Copies of the report and response are available in the Library.

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the funding for 1997 for the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. [10375]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1997–98 Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority will receive an integrated allocation of £324 million, an increase of £5.1 million in real terms. The health authority will also receive an additional £6 million in 1997–98 to help implement strategic change.

  Medicinal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals he has to reduce deaths resulting from the use of medicinal drugs. [10376]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 April 1996,Official Report, column 504, to the recent adjournment debate, Official Report 11 December 1996, columns 379–86 he initiated and to the replies I gave him on 13 February 1996, Official Report, column 557; and 4 July 1996, Official Report, columns 493–94.

  Complaints (NHS Dentists)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase public awareness of the complaints procedures in respect of NHS dentists. [10377]

  Mr. Malone
  A national health service dentist is required by the regulations covering NHS general dental services in England and Wales to"inform his patients about the practice based complaints procedure which he operates".

  A supply of public information leaflets and posters was sent to all NHS trusts, family health services authorities, community health councils and family health services practitioners for use from 1 April 1996 when the new system was implemented. In addition, leaflets and posters have been supplied to all citizens advice bureaux, main public libraries and health information service outlets. The leaflet is also available in the 11 most commonly used ethnic minority languages.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of the prescription charge in 1979 at current prices. [10378]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on 5 November 1996,Official Report, column 496.

  Hepatitis B
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to adopt a universal vaccination policy to protect children against the hepatitis B virus. [10379]
  585
  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 3 December 1996,Official Report, column 642.

  Evidence-based Medicine
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to promote evidence-based medicine; and if he will make a statement. [10380]

  Mr. Malone
  The improvement of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of national health service services is a priority for the NHS as set out in the annual priorities and planning guidance. The NHS strategy White Paper, "A Service with Ambitions" reinforces the Government's commitment to support the NHS in bridging the gap between research findings and routine clinical practice.

  Executive letter (96)110 about "Improving the effectiveness of clinical services" was sent to all health authorities and NHS trusts in December 1996. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Fundholders (Northamptonshire)
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of fundholding general practices in Northamptonshire in each year since fundholding commenced. [10381]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information on the number of fundholding practices in Northamptonshire is:

  Fundholding practices in Northamptonshire FHSA1 at 1 April

  Year

  Number of fundholding practices

  1991

  3

  1992

  11

  1993

  16

  1994

  16

  1995

  21

  1996

  34

  1Northamptonshire health authority from 1 April 1996.

  Emergency Call Services
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of lives which could be saved every year through prioritisation of emergency 999 calls. [10382]

  Mr. Horam
  The steering group on ambulance performance standards suggested that prioritisation of 999 calls could help to save the lives of an additional 3,200 cardiac arrest victims a year.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about creating a hardship fund for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C. [10383]

  Mr. Horam
  Since my answer to my hon. Friend on 5 December 1995,Official Report, columns 130–31, representations have included six parliamentary questions
  586
  and three early-day motions. There have also been two debates in this House. In addition, Ministers have received 334 letters, one of which included a petition.

  West Middlesex University Hospital
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the scheme to rebuild the West Middlesex university hospital. [10384]

  Mr. Horam
  Progress on this scheme is a matter for the West Middlesex University Hospital national health service trust. The NHS executive is awaiting the full business case from the trust.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the number of qualified paramedics per head of population. [8077]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is in the table. These figures are based on the number of ambulance paramedics recorded by the Department of Health's September 1995 non-medical work force census—the first year in which ambulance paramedics were separately identified in the census.

  The regional figures shown in the table should be interpreted with caution because the population figures take no account of the relative needs of the people within each region and in some cases the population served by organisations within a particular region can be greater than the population of the region itself.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Service ambulance paramedics per 10,000 head of population by NHS executive regional office areas; England 1995

  Ambulance paramedics per 10,000 head of population

  England1

  1.23

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1.17

  Trent

  0.77

  Anglia and Oxford

  0.86

  North and South Thames1, 2

  1.27

  South and West

  1.65

  West Midlands

  1.13

  North West

  1.48

  1Based on revised figures. The Department of Health's statistical bulletin: NHS hospital and community health services non-medical staff in England 1985–1995, reported that there were 6,760 ambulance paramedics in England at September 1995. However, subsequent investigation shows that figures for the London Ambulance Service included staff with partial paramedic training. With these staff excluded, there were 6,000 paramedics at September 1995.

  2Figures for North and South Thames NHS executive regional office areas have been combined to allow the inclusion of figures for the London Ambulance Service.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each year his Department has sponsored research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathy,(a) the number of projects sponsored, (b) the resources committed to the research and (c) the number of publications arising from the research; and if he will place in the Library a list of titles of all published conferences, research papers, monographs and other

  587
  research reports on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy produced by or on behalf of his Department. [10627]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health and the Scottish Office department of health jointly fund the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit in Edinburgh, which was set up in 1990. To date, expenditure on the unit has totalled some £1.4 million and future needs are being reviewed. The unit published an annual report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Since 1993, the Department of Health has spent £0.5 million on research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. A list of projects which have received funding from the Department of Health up to 16 January 1997 is shown in the table. A new strategy for research and development into the human health aspects of TSEs has been developed since March 1996. Details were published on 11 November and have been placed in the Library.

  The directed programmes of relevant funders are being commissioned against the strategy, for which the Department of Health plans to make £9.5 million available over the next three years. A joint Medical Research Council-Department of Health call for proposals was advertised in the academic press in May 1996. Projects successful after shortlisting by the DH/MRC TSE research advisory group have been invited to submit full proposals, some of which have been approved and are on the point of being funded.

  A list of Government publications on TSEs has been placed in the Library. All researchers are expected to publish the results of their work but, in view of the long time scale of TSE research, it may be some time before projects which are current or just getting under way will be in a position to publish.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Research projects sponsored by the Department of Health (as at 16 January 1997)

  Project title

  Financial years covered

  Resources committed £

  Autoclave decontamination standards for SE agents

  1993–94 to 1995–96

  339,886

  Molecular genetic studies of the human prion protein gene

  1995–96 to 1998–99

  281,000

  Strain characterisation of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by transmission to mice

  1995–96 to 1998–99

  62,757

  Transmission of CJD to mice

  1996–97 to 2000–01

  890,868

  Osteopaths Act 1993
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has so far been taken to implement the provisions of the Osteopaths Act 1993; and if he will make a statement. [10964]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the designate membership of the General Osteopathic Council on 31 January 1996,Official Report, column 812. On Tuesday 14 January 1997, following completion of preliminary work by the designate General Osteopathic Council, the first commencement order to be made under the Osteopaths
  588
  Act 1993 appointed for the commencement of provisions formally bringing the General Osteopathic Council into being. On the same day, the Privy Council formally appointed the osteopathic and lay members, and three of the four education members of the council, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment formally appointed the fourth education member.

  The chairman and members are now embarking on the programme of work necessary to enable the statutory register of osteopaths to open in early 1998.

  Those appointed are as follows:
  Chairman (lay member): Mr. Simon Fielding OBE
  Osteopathic members (all practising osteopaths):

  Dr. John G. Armitstead MA MRCP (UK) DO

  Mr. John B. Barkworth DO

  Miss Susan Farwell DO

  Mr. Gerry Gajadharsingh DO

  Mr. Maurice Hills DO

  Mrs. Jane Langer DO

  Mr. John Lant DO

  Mrs. Susan Pawsey MSc DO

  Mr. John Roberts MSc DO

  Mr. Phillip Tanswell DO

  Mr. Nicholas Woodhead DO

  Education members:

  Mr. Jonathan Hobbs DO

  Mr. Gregory Sharp DO

  Miss Sarah Wallace DO

  Dr. Brian Jolly BSc MA(Ed) PhD

  Lay members:

  Mr. T. Nigel Clarke BA (Hons): Director, GLW Government Relations, and Chairman Notiondouble Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Kershaw BA (Hons) MA: assistant registrar, General Medical Council

  Mrs. Rita Lewis MSc(Econs): health policy consultant/lecturer, member of UKCC

  Mr. David Phillips OBE BDS: dental director and secretary, the Medical Protection Society Ltd.

  Mrs. Deborah Todman LLB(Hons) MRAD: barrister

  Mr. Alan Lettin BSc MS FRCS: vice-president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities' funding allocation for the provision of beta interferon(a) in September 1996 and (b) at the latest available date. [11016]

  Mr. Malone
  No such allocations have been made. The costs of prescribing beta interferon are expected to be met from within health authority general allocations, having regard to local priorities.

  School Milk
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the school milk campaigners to discuss the "Hunger Within" report. [11603]
  589
  Mr. Horam
  Officials met representatives of the school milk campaign on 22 October 1996 when aspects of the then forthcoming report were discussed. The SMC is in regular correspondence with the Department and with my colleagues from the Department for Education and Employment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. SMC is aware of the Government's position and a further meeting at this stage is not planned.

  Behaviourally Disturbed Young People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure the representation of(a) his Department and (b) the chief medical officer's office at the meeting arranged under the auspices of the British Association for Psychopharmacology in London on 27 January regarding prescription of medicine for behaviourally disturbed young people; and if he will make a statement. [11510]

  Mr. Burns
  This will depend on the availability of relevant officials. The Department arranges to keep in touch with all meetings on professional matters of significant concern.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the detection rate of children suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by child psychiatrists and paediatricians; and if he will make a statement. [11508]

  Mr. Burns
  Matters concerning clinical performance and effectiveness are for the bodies—including the royal colleges—responsible for professional training, accreditation and development programmes and for clinical audit at local level. The Department has funded and supported a number of initiatives aimed at highlighting the importance of identifying and treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11590]

  Mr. Horam
  Ministers of the Crown are able to make use of the child care facilities provided by the Department.

  Speech Therapy Services (East London)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has evaluated into the speech therapy requirements of the east London area in respect of ensuring equity of service provision within the area; [11484]

  (2) what is the total budget for speech therapy services in (a) Tower Hamlets, (b) Newham and (c) City and Hackney. [11485]

  Mr. Burns
  Assessment of need and the allocation of funding are matters for the health authorities concerned. We do not hold details centrally.

  Prescribed Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much cannabis in(a) tincture and (b) other forms was prescribed by qualified medical practitioners in each year from 1967 to 1970. [11526]
  590
  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available.

  GP Prescription List
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what period of notice was given to GPs in England and Wales in respect of the deadline for comments on the recent list of drugs to be removed from GP prescription; how many representations were received; and what discussions his officials have had with the British Medical Association about the period of notice. [11320]

  Mr. Malone
  On 25 November 1996, a press release was issued announcing consultation on recommended changes to the list of products which general practitioners may not prescribe on the national health service. Comments were invited by 9 January 1997. About 200 representations have been received in response. A copy of the press release was sent to the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association and to the Royal College of General Practitioners. There have been no discussions with the BMA about the period of notice. In responding to the proposals, the BMA has asked us to notify GPs as soon as possible of any changes which may be made to the list of non-prescribable items.

  Nutrition
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the findings of the Southampton university health education report, "Children Who Have No Breakfast"; and if he will make a statement. [11602]

  Mr. Horam
  We have not seen the report referred to. We are aware of work from Southampton university addressing the number of children who do not eat a nutritious breakfast. Breakfast can make an important contribution to the nutritional requirements of both adults and children as part of a healthy balanced diet.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what checks his Department conducts on the qualifications of agency nursing personnel; [11709]

  (2) what assistance his Department gives to (a) hospital trusts and (b) health authorities in checking the qualifications of agency nursing staff. [11708]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for local managers.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the proposed study on the outcome measures for MS will begin. [11879]

  Mr. Malone
  A final decision on starting this study will be made once a satisfactory protocol for outcome measures has been finalised.

  Asthma
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) incidence and (b) prevalence of asthma (i) by region and (ii) nationally in each of the last five years. [12041]
  591
  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available. The best available information was brought together in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview", produced by the central health monitoring unit of the Department of Health and published in March 1995. Copies were placed in the Library.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the report on the future of the public health laboratory service. [12043]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not the Government's practice to publish prior options review reports. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make an announcement to the House on the outcome of the public health laboratory service review as soon as it has been agreed with ministerial colleagues, following which he will lodge a memorandum in the Library.

  Dioxin Emissions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health hazards associated with dioxin emissions; and if he will make a statement. [10423]

  Mr. Horam
  The expert advisory Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has reviewed the toxicology of dioxins on a number of occasions. A tolerable daily intake for dioxins of 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day was set in by the committee in 1991. Following a United States Environmental Protection Agency draft report on dioxins in September 1994, COT reviewed all the available data and concluded that the new information continued to support its earlier advice and the TDI remained unchanged.

  The results of the first review on dioxins were reported in "Pollution Paper No. 27: Dioxins in the Environment"—HMSO: London, 1989. Pollution papers are available in the Library.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent Ecoli epidemic; what plans he has to introduce new measures to prevent such epidemics; and if he will make a statement. [10424]

  Mr. Horam
  An assessment of the outbreak in Scotland is being made by an expert group under the chairmanship of Professor Pennington. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 15 January 1997,Official Report, columns 323–26.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual number of cases of food poisoning in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement. [10463]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of cases of food poisoning notified to the Office for National Statistics is published 592
  in "Series MB2 Communicable Disease Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter from the hon. Member for Harrow, East sent to him on 6 December, if he will invoke his powers under National Health Service Acts to secure from the Barnet district health authority an extension of the range of emergency services available at Edgware general hospital, in accordance with the terms of his written undertaking to the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Harrow, East submitted on 11 June; and if he will place a copy of this letter in the Library. [10537]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I do not intend to publish private and confidential correspondence between myself and hon. Members; I have no intention of using my reserve powers under the National Health Service Acts in respect of current proposals for Edgware hospital; I believe that the decisions reached by Barnet health authority at a meeting on 25 September 1996 reflect the real commitment of the NHS to respond to the concerns of the people of Edgware.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent life expectancy has changed since 1979. [10661]

  Mr. Horam
  Life expectancy at birth in England has increased in men from 70.4 years in 1979 to 74.3 years in 1995 and in women from 76.4 years in 1979 to 79.6 years in 1995.

  GP-prescribed Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the expenditure on general practitioner-prescribed(a) tranquilisers and (b) anti-depressants in each health district in England over the last three years and for the half year to October 1996 in cash terms as expenditure per head of resident population in each district. [11612]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 July 1996,Official Report, column 112. Information before 1995–96 is not held and available information for the half year to September 1996 will be placed in the Library.

  Suicides
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides occurred in(a) each health district in England, and (b) NHS institutions in the last three complete years, and for the half year to October 1996; and if he will express these figures as a rate per head of the population. [11616]

  Mr. Burns
  Details of the number of suicides in(a) each health district in England and (b) NHS facilities in the last three complete years will be placed in the Library. Data for the first half of 1996 are not yet

  593
  available. For (b) it is not possible to calculate population rates because there are no hospital populations available to use as denominators.

  Ambulance Trusts (Stall)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) paramedics, (b) technicians and (c) staff in total were employed by ambulance trusts in each of the last five years. [8505]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: The information available centrally is shown in the table. Ambulance technicians are not separately identified in the Department of Health's annual non-medical work force census and paramedics were not separately identified until 1995—the latest year for which census information is available.

  NHS hospital and community health services staff employed by ambulance trusts1; England as at September 1991 to 1995

  Whole-time equivalents

  Number

  1991

  Ambulance staff2

  1,240

  All staff

  1,420

  594

  NHS hospital and community health services staff employed by ambulance trusts1 ; England as at September 1991 to 1995

  Whole-time equivalents

  Number

  1992

  Ambulance staff2

  4,620

  All staff

  5,320

  1993

  Ambulance staff2

  10,260

  All staff

  11,810

  1994

  Ambulance staff2

  14,960

  All staff

  17,160

  1995

  Ambulance paramedics

  5,240

  All staff

  17,540

  Notes:

  1Figures are based on trusts described as "ambulance trusts" in their title. Ambulance staff employed by other trusts e.g. whole district trusts or community trusts, are excluded. The figures exclude staff not employed in trusts e.g. directly managed units (including the London Ambulance Service).

  2Ambulance staff include ambulance men and women, ambulance officers and control assistants.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual non-medical work force census.

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

War Disablement Pensions: Deafness
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
On which medical authority they relied in changing their policy on pensions for ex-service personnel suffering deafness.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security: My Lords, there has been no change of policy. Medical opinion on noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss has changed. Under the war pensions scheme we must abide by current medical opinion when determining claims to war disablement pensions.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met senior officers of the Royal British Legion on 10th January to discuss the deafness change. After the meeting the legion confirmed that, together with its medical advisers, it accepted there was validity in the change in medical opinion.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is playing with words, because there has been a change? Does he accept that the present situation is a fatuous one? In future, virtually no ex-service personnel will receive pensions for noise-induced deafness. That is contrary to the intention of the Act. The Minister shakes his head. Does he agree that the Ministry of Defence has stated that no service personnel leaving the services with less than 20 per cent. hearing disability will get a pension? That ignores the central fact that when noise-induced deafness is added to the ageing process, earlier and more severe deafness disability ensues. Some people can get by with ageing deafness, but when it is added to noise-induced deafness, they find themselves in very serious trouble. Can the Minister say whether there will be any new regulations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is confused between initial noise-induced deafness and deterioration due to age. Anyone who has noise-induced deafness at a level of 20 per cent. or above will receive a pension. There is no point in the noble Lord shaking his head in dissent. That is true. The current issue under discussion is whether age-related deterioration is affected by that noise-induced disability. The medical evidence is clear. The final change in medical opinion followed publication in February 1996 of articles by Mark Lutman and Adrian Davies in The Scientific Basis of Noise Induced Hearing Loss. Their findings represent the views of experts at the
544
Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research and audiological scientists at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research. The position on war pension legislation is that the agency and Ministers are obliged to follow medical opinion, whether that favours the war pensioner or the Government. I suspect that the noble Lord would not expect us to do otherwise.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have a pension from the noble Lord's department as a result of deafness induced by flying. However, the department has not paid anything yet because first it wants back the lump sum that it paid me. However, at some future time I may have a pension. Without going into the medical evidence, does the noble Lord agree that if someone receives a pension because he has suffered war damage to his ears and the damage becomes worse as he gets older, his disability is greater and therefore there is a need for an increased pension?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first I shall follow up the noble Lord's problem when I return to my office. I shall make sure that he gets his just deserts. To deal with the second part of his question, if there is noise-induced deafness in excess of 20 per cent., a pension will be paid. The medical evidence is that natural deterioration of hearing due to age is not affected by the original noise-induced deafness. The two are not mathematically additive; but I shall not get into the complications of the medical papers, which I commend to the noble Lord for his quiet reading.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I should also declare a personal interest in this matter. I must spring to the Government's defence. At the back end of 1945, following the surrender of Japan, I asked a medical board to dismiss me from the Army. The board met in Blackpool and I attended. It was agreed that my tank had been blown up, that my eye had been shot out and that I should have a pension. I pointed out that after I had come out of hospital in January 1945, I had been put on gunnery instruction at Purbright. I had to go to Appleby on the ranges approximately once a month to instruct trainee guardsmen in the use of armour-piercing shells. For those who do not realise it, armour-piercing shells have a much higher muzzle velocity than other projectiles and therefore are dangerous. As the officer taking trainees all the way from Purbright, I had to stand at the back of a tank and shout orders. One could not use ear plugs because one would not have been able to communicate properly. I pointed out to the medical board that although I had suffered a certain amount during the war in fighting, and so forth, my main injury was severe deafness in my left ear. The board was chiefly examining the damage to my eye. I was asked whether I had had my ear washed recently. I was very hurt by that and said no more. However, last May all my friends in the legion and the Normandy Veterans Association asked me why I had not gone to the medical board. Is my noble friend aware that in May I applied

545
to the board and was asked in October/November to go to London to be examined? In December I was told that I deserved the extra 20 per cent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has succeeded in getting his pension for deafness caused by his time on the artillery range. He makes the valid point that people were severely deafened on those occasions, and pension is paid for that. But that is not the point of this discussion. The question is whether that original deafness deteriorates thereafter. All the medical evidence is that it does not. The fact is that not a single expert has come forward to say that my advisers and the people whose names I quoted earlier are wrong.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may challenge the Minister's last assertion. He said that he was forced to act because the medical evidence was unanimous. He has repeated that today. Is that indeed the case? I have cuttings from Dr. Coles, the Nottingham spokesman of the MRC Institute of Hearing. He says that Dr. Braidwood, the Minister's adviser, had most of her facts right but has interpreted them wrongly. He goes on to say that if one looks at data from the Falklands, no one would receive compensation for noise injury on the basis of the new rules. The view of Dr. Coles is supported, I understand, by medical evidence from the RNID. Given that the medical evidence is not clear cut, unanimous or unambiguous, and that there are clearly dissenting, and well founded dissenting, views, will the Minister please reconsider the evidence before he removes £35 million from 10, 000 future war pensioners?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the first instance, I am not removing any money from anyone. The noble Baroness should know that, especially in a week when her right honourable friend the Chancellor—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: —the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was trying to get at this too quickly—has conceded that the Government's spending plans all across Whitehall are totally adequate. Is not that in stark contrast to the usual pleas I receive? To come to the point, Dr. Coles and the RNID are in fact one and the same when it comes to this: he advises it on this matter. Although Dr. Coles has been in hospital for the past week or two, he has had the workings of the war pensions system clarified. What he thought in late December was:
"I think she"—
that is, Dr. Braidwood—
"is correct in her main findings that noise-induced hearing loss of itself does not increase after the noise exposure stops, and that hearing loss due to noise and ageing are less than mathematically additive in terms of decibels".
546
I am sorry to tell the noble Baroness that no medical expert contradicts the evidence of all the other experts upon whose evidence we have drawn.

Prisons: Suicides
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reduce the number of suicides among remand and other prisoners.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the Prison Service has a comprehensive strategy aimed at reducing the incidence of suicide. This has been carefully developed and is based on independent research and professional expertise. The strategy is, though, kept under continual review.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that more than half the people who committed suicide while in prison last year were remand prisoners? According to the British Medical Journal, approximately a quarter were seriously mentally disturbed. In addition, many of them were relatively young people. In the first three weeks of this year already three young men, aged 21, 19, and 17, have committed suicide. Will the Minister consider carefully the consequences of overcrowding in prison, which means that education and training schemes—the best chance to get young men and women to go straight—are having to be interrupted because people are being moved continually from prison to prison, as indicated so graphically last night by the Director of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, in the "Panorama" television programme on the subject?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a number of questions. I shall make every effort to answer as many as possible. The last thing the noble Baroness mentioned before the "Panorama" programme was the factors contributing to an individual's suicide, which we must all agree is tragic for all those concerned. There is no hard evidence that environmental conditions in a prison cause suicides. The quality of relationships between staff and prisoners may, for example, be of greater significance than prison conditions. The noble Baroness quoted also the Director General of the Prison Service. He has said that the Prison Service is doing everything possible further to reduce the number. We believe that the preventive strategies we have developed in prisons over the past few years have helped and will continue to do so. The noble Baroness commented also on the figures relating to remand prisoners. She is correct. The percentages relating to the young are reflected throughout the whole of the prison population.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that the Minister is not responsible for prisons in Scotland. However, will he convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland

547
that the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are shared by the people of Scotland? Is he aware that during the past 18 months in the only women's prison in Scotland there have been 12 suicides or attempted suicides? Six young women have taken their lives in that one prison, and four should not have been there at all as they were on remand. Is this not a serious matter that should be addressed with some urgency?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is correct in saying that this is a serious matter. As I said in a previous answer, it is a tragedy to all those involved, including families and those working in the prison service. I believe that the noble Lord refers to Cornton Vale Prison, which is a female remand prison. Many of those who took their lives were involved in drug-related offences. I understand that fatal accident inquiries will begin later in the year, and of course I shall pass on his thoughts to my right honourable friend.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, as a proportion of the non-prison population, these figures appear to be very high indeed. Can the Minister indicate, first, whether that is so and, secondly, the type of research that is being undertaken to understand the cause?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is correct in saying that the figures are high. One must remember that those entering prisons are perhaps mentally introverted and do not want to tell people what their problems are. We are aware that there is a problem and we are making every effort to improve the situation. In particular, we are emphasising specific areas in which we believe improvements can be made: for instance, the communication of risk information; better targeting of staff training; re-examining the use of shared and unfurnished accommodation; improving reception and induction screening for prisoners and the reassessment of the special needs of young offenders and female offenders.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of those suicides or attempted suicides were committed by those kept in isolation?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I do not have those figures available.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, understandably, the Minister's answers concern what can be done in prison. But, surely, arising from his first Answer, a major part of the problem is the wrongful remand in custody of those who are mentally unstable or at risk of doing harm to themselves. Should not his answers be extended to cover guidance to the courts about that important aspect of the problem?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, throughout the existing system, when individuals are arrested by the police and go before the magistrate, whether remanded
548
on bail or going further into the prison system, reports are sent back to those affected in order to inform them of those who are at risk of these dreadful tragedies.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether all prisoners are given the telephone number of the Samaritans and whether bullying is one of the problems?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, of course the Samaritans are heavily involved in visiting prisoners. They also train prisoners as listeners to help their fellow prisoners. I believe that 80 prisons in the Prison Service have that action in progress.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that we have two more Questions. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should give them a fair crack of the whip.

Hospitals: Additional Finance
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any further and additional financial resources are to be made available to hospitals which are having to treat an increased number of patients due to the recent cold weather.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health: My Lords, yes, an additional £25 million has been made available to support the NHS with this winter's pressures.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that I am not for one moment blaming the Government for the lengthy period of inclement weather that has resulted in the pressure on certain hospitals. Does she recall that a few weeks ago I asked a Question which emanated from a document published by the BMA which predicted that there would be severe pressure on certain hospitals if resources were not made available immediately? Does the Minister agree that the BMA was right to say that and was not crying wolf, as the Minister then indicated? Will she accept from me that although the resources she has mentioned have been made available, they appear on the surface to be inadequate to deal with the very serious situation in which some hospitals find themselves today?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that one of the problems this winter has been not only the bad weather but the coincidence of the flu epidemic. That epidemic has not only had an influence on admissions. The number of emergency admissions is the highest ever. It has also affected the nursing staff. So the health service has been under

549
pressure. I find the issue of resources very interesting since the shadow Chancellor made his announcements yesterday. I now imagine that the Labour Party believes that the level of resources we allocate to the health service is about right.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in view of the shadow Chancellor's statement yesterday it ill becomes members of the Opposition to ask for an increase in public expenditure without saying where it is to come from? Does she also agree that despite the fact that the shadow Chancellor said that the standard rate of tax would remain the same he said nothing about decreased personal allowances for tax purposes or an increase in the national insurance contribution?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the efforts of some hospitals to try to free their beds is frustrated by the fact that certain social services departments are unable to help with the release of patients into the outside world because they closed down for three weeks during Christmas. That happened in the case of the Wandsworth social services department? Can the Minister give some guidance to councils on the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Clearly, there must be close liaison between the health services and the social services. One of the reasons why we have problems with bed blocking is the fact that social services are not taking patients who are ready to go home. We have allocated £16 million to try to resolve the situation.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when, as the Minister has described, those manning accident and emergency units and emergency wards are under huge pressure, with doctors and nurses, many of whose colleagues are off sick, working extremely long hours, is it not deeply dispiriting for them when all they read in the newspapers are complaints about long waiting lists, trolley waits and crowded A&E departments? Will the Minister now publicly thank them, as I have thanked our people, for a period of immensely hard work when we kept the service going?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As the chairman of a trust he will know only too well the pressures that hospitals have been under and the enormous commitment that staff make in order to keep the services going. I very much welcome the opportunity to thank those staff. They have been under great pressure this winter. As always, doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, porters and all those involved in the National Health Service have come up trumps.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister give some reassurance to the people of Leeds
550
and Hull who have had emergency cases shuffled between the two cities? Patients have died because of the lack of intensive care beds. Would it not be possible to be more flexible and open a few more intensive care beds in this problem period?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have allocated £25 million for this year, so that money is available to trusts if they wish to expand their services. But it is not just a question of opening beds; it is also a question of recruiting staff. As has been said, one of the problems has been illness among staff. However, I shall be visiting Hull next week and I shall certainly look at the situation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that we all join the Minister in congratulating those dedicated NHS staff who have struggled to keep services going this winter. However, we are entitled to ask a simple question: what has gone wrong? Does the Minister recall that in a debate on this subject she said that,
"we have learnt the lessons of last winter. Since that time, planning for winter pressures has been a priority for the NHS"?—[Official Report, 6/11/96; col. 708.]
Why, then, do we have the catalogue of descriptions of depressing circumstances which come not only from the media but also from various Members of your Lordships' House? Is the Minister aware that, quite frankly, the excuses now being given by the Government for the situation in the hospitals are beginning to resemble an NHS version of leaves on the railway lines and the wrong sort of snow?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that that is rather unfair. The noble Baroness will know that we have never had so many emergency admissions in one year. In fact, such admissions can double in a day and, coupled with the coincidence of the sharp winter weather and the flu epidemic, it is not surprising that the National Health Service is under pressure. As a past chairman responsible for 16 hospitals, I should say that it has forever been thus. I can remember 10 years ago when the situation was a great deal worse. We now have more patients treated. We have more staff. We are doing better and better and better, and the nation should be proud of its National Health Service.

Waste Management: Certificates
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the deadline of 10th August 1999 for waste facility managers to obtain their certificates of technical competence still holds; and whether they are satisfied that the waste industry is taking steps to ensure that all managers are qualified by that date.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the deadline of 10th August 1999, by which waste management facility managers should obtain their certificates of

551
technical competence, still applies—other than for two exceptions. One is for those who are covered by the Waste Management Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations which grant an exemption until 1st October 2001. The other is for those who are covered by the Special Waste Regulations 1996, which allow some exemptions until 10th August 2000. We are confident that all managers can be qualified by the relevant dates and we are encouraging the waste industry to take the necessary steps.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that it is important that those managers who have worked so hard and made such an effort to obtain their certificates well in advance of the date and who have achieved the necessary standard should not have the goal-posts moved at any time so that those who have not done the work find it easier to obtain the certificates? Can he tell the House the Government's proposals for enforcing the regulations as regards technical competence certificates and say what will be the consequences for those companies which do not achieve the result which has been asked of them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is very important that those people who have applied to obtain the certificates should be able to do so. It is our intention to ensure that as many people as possible are able to do that. The noble Baroness said that she does not wish to see the goal-posts moved. I can understand that. There is likely to be a slight change because there are at present nine certificates of competence and it is expected that that will increase to 11.
If a site is being run by a person without a certificate of competence, that will be a matter for the Environment Agency which will be able to revoke the licence for the site.
Baroness David: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the requirements of the vocational qualification are adequate and appropriate for practical managers? Who was responsible for devising this qualification and who was consulted about the requirements?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the requirements are both adequate and sufficient. The noble Baroness asked me who is responsible for that. It is that remarkable body called WAMITAB. Your Lordships may not know what that stands for. It stands for the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. That board has consulted with its organisations and the Government. It is producing new proposals which will be considered by the Government and, if necessary, regulations will be introduced which will be laid before Parliament.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the Minister said that the number of certificates will increase from nine to 11. I hope that that does not mean that there will be a watering down of the standards. It is very important that the goal-posts are not moved in
552
relation to the standards required of waste managers. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no; the standards will not be altered at all. It will merely be easier for people to obtain a certificate in the particular discipline in which they wish to have one. The standards will remain just as high.

Police Bill [H.L.]: Procedure
3.6 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I wish to ask the Leader of the House for a Business Statement about yesterday's proceedings on the Police Bill and the Government's intentions for the next stage of the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the Leader and the House if I explain very briefly why I make that request.
I understand that discussions took place this morning and have been widely reported between the Home Secretary and Mr. Jack Straw for the Opposition about the future of the Bill. Although I fully understand that they were conducted properly, it would be extremely helpful if the noble Viscount would give some account to this House of the nature and outcome of those discussions. It would also be helpful if he could give an undertaking that at the various stages of any further discussions, your Lordships will be informed about progress and will not have to rely upon press releases or, for that matter, statements in another place to know how the matter is to be resolved.
I ask that because the two amendments which were carried yesterday in your Lordships' House were of deep concern to Members on all sides. It would be discourteous—not of the Leader himself who is never that—if your Lordships were not kept fully informed of all developments. They should not simply learn of them after the event.
I believe that the assumption is widely held that, in the first instance, the Home Secretary will make a decision on the question in principle. Although clearly the Leader of the House will not say so, it is inconceivable that the Government will attempt to overturn those very decisive votes of your Lordships yesterday. Therefore, first, I should expect a statement of principle.
After that, no doubt the Home Secretary will come forward with his own proposals. I make it clear that any discussion of the proposals should not be on a bilateral basis between the Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy nominee in another place. Instead, it should in some way involve all those who are extremely concerned about the issue and want to see a successful outcome and an amendment to the Bill which will ensure that the judicial authorisation would be credible in all aspects.
I am sure that your Lordships recognise, as we do on these Benches, that the two amendments carried were in some ways mutually incompatible. Yet, at the same time, the will of your Lordships' House must be reflected in the future of the Bill.

553
The second point on which I hope the noble Viscount will be able to help us is as regards the future progress of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, the House sat until 25 minutes before 2 a.m. in discussions on the Report stage. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was not present, but I do not hold that against him. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was present, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, so they were a good team. But we sat very late indeed. I put it to the Leader of the House that it is not in the spirit of the Jellicoe Report that we should have continued in that way with what, by all accounts and in the view of the Government, are very important measures.
Part V of the Bill, which is of great concern to your Lordships and indeed to many people outside, was reached at a quarter-to 12 at night. I would respectfully ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to reflect on whether that is the way in which we should be conducting our business when our task is that of scrutiny.
We are due to reach the Third Reading of the Bill next week. I ask the noble Viscount whether it might be wiser to postpone the Third Reading until some of these matters have been resolved. As his noble friend Lady Blatch will say, some of the difficulties and some of the delays which occurred yesterday were in fact due to the amendments which had been carried earlier in the day. Would it not be better to settle that issue once and for all, before we attempt to deal with the rest of the Bill?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, not least for the charming way in which he alluded to what I believe he called my "courtesy". That is something which I always try to preserve in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. Noble Lords will be aware that an agreement has been reached through the usual channels to complete the Committee stage—
Noble Lords: Report stage!
Viscount Cranborne: I beg your pardon, my Lords; it must have been an even later night than I remember. As I was saying, agreement has been reached to complete the Report stage of the Bill this evening, after the completion of the Committee stage of the Firearms Bill. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the date for the Third Reading of the Bill, which was agreed some time ago through the usual channels, is Tuesday next, 28th January.
Of course the Government, as is only right and proper, will urgently consider the effects of the amendments which were carried in this Chamber last night. They will want to consider those amendments and their effects with some care and with due deliberation. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, as this House has spoken, it would only be right for us to continue with the timetable of the Bill as agreed between the usual channels. I should stress that I am extremely grateful to the Members of the official
554
Opposition for the co-operative way in which they have observed the traditions of this House and have taken part in constructive discussions regarding the timetable.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry if I am embarrassing the noble Baroness in any way by paying her compliments; but I can hardly resist the temptation.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the situation is very clear. Your Lordships have amended the Bill twice. It will be up to your Lordships to consider the Bill further on Third Reading and then in due course it will be up to another place to decide what to do with the legislation. The Government are content to rest on the decision of Parliament as the Bill proceeds in the normal way through this place and, in due course, through another place, and eventually, when it comes to the point, to consider any messages from the other place in relation to the Bill.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I could draw his attention to my first and central question; namely, what is the nature and outcome of the discussions which the Home Secretary engaged in this morning?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to say that I have not been privy to any discussions that have taken place. As far as I am aware, if discussions have taken place, no announcement has yet been made. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be in a position to make a public announcement when the time is right. He is not in a position to do so as yet.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.14 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 20).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
COMMITTEES ON LEGISLATION OFF THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has conducted a further review of the procedures for committees on legislation off the floor of the House. As recommended by the Group on Sittings of the House (the Rippon Committee) in 1994, a number of procedures are now available. To avoid confusion and for the information of the House, we set out as an annex to this report a short description of each procedure, which will be included in the Companion to Standing Orders.
A year ago the Committee noted that in Session 1994–95 the House of Commons had implemented certain recommendations of the Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee). As a result, the Commons had risen on average substantially earlier each day. With the more limited reform programme proposed by the Rippon Committee, the House of Lords had also risen earlier although the trend was less marked than in the Commons. In Session 1995–96 the House of Commons continued to rise earlier but the

555
House of Lords sat for longer hours—on average for 6 hours 53 minutes each day compared to 6 hours 22 minutes in Session 1994–95—and there were 47 sittings after 10.30 pm compared to 33 such sittings in Session 1994–95.
We remind the House of our recommendation in 1994 (1st Report, 1994–95, HL 9) that "whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 pm". We recognised then that a significant improvement in sitting hours could come only with general support throughout the House.
The Committee makes the following observations on the new procedures for committees off the floor:

(1) The Special Public Bill Committee procedure was not used in Session 1995–96. We remain of the view that it provides a useful addition to the scrutiny function of the House. We will at our next meeting consider certain proposed changes to this procedure.

(2) In 1995–96 five Bills committed to a Committee of the Whole House were considered in Committees in the Moses Room in which no divisions can be held. Some 25 hours were spent in committees on these Bills. This procedure, which allows all Lords to attend and participate fully, continues to prove successful for suitable Bills and generally popular with those members of the House who take part. In order to differentiate these committees from committees on the floor of the House, we recommend that they are in future described as Grand Committees.

(3) No further experiment was held in Session 1995–96 of Informal Committees of interested members of the House. A further experiment might help to determine whether this informal method of proceeding should be retained.

(4) Two experiments in Scottish Select Committees, whereby a committee with a fixed membership takes evidence in Scotland on a Government Bill relating to Scotland, were held in Session 1995–96. The Committee agreed to this experimental procedure in December 1995 (2nd Report, 1995–96, HL 15). A third Bill, the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill, has been committed to such a committee this session. The two committees last session were well received by those taking part in the proceedings. We accordingly recommend that the procedure should be made permanent. It will remain an option available to the House for suitable Scottish Bills, and could be adopted for the consideration of Welsh Bills, if appropriate.

ANNEX

  COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  I. Committee of the Whole House
  This is the traditional method of proceeding with a Bill after Second Reading. A Bill is committed to a Committee of the Whole House taken on the floor of the House unless the House otherwise directs.
  II. Grand Committee (in the Moses Room)
  This procedure was recommended by the Group on the Sittings of the House (chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham) in 1994 and first used in 1995. The Committee considers the Bill and amendments are tabled in the same way as a Committee of the Whole House, but no divisions may take place. All Lords are free to attend and participate.
  III. Public Bill Committee
  This procedure has been used on nine occasions since 1968 and was last used to consider the Trade Marks Bill in 1994. The procedure differs from Committee of the Whole House off the floor in that a limited number of Lords (proposed by the Committee of Selection) are appointed to undertake the committee stage. Divisions may take place. Lords who are not named of the Committee are entitled to participate in the proceedings but may not vote.
  IV. Special Public Bill Committee
  This procedure, which was first used in 1994, was initially recommended by the Committee on the Committee Work of the House (chaired by Earl Jellicoe) and later by the Rippon Committee.
  556
  The Committee may take written and oral evidence within 28 days of its appointment. As in the case of a Public Bill Committee, a limited number of Lords are appointed to conduct the committee stage. After hearing evidence, Special Public Bill Committees proceed in the same way as Public Bill Committees: they consider the Bill clause by clause, amendments may be made and divisions may take place.
  V. Select Committee
  This procedure allows detailed investigation by a Select Committee (appointed by the House with the members proposed by the Committee of Selection) at any stage between Second and Third Readings. The Committee may take evidence and reports to the House on the provisions of the Bill, recommending whether or not it should proceed. If it recommends that the Bill should proceed, the Committee may make amendments to it. Thereafter the Bill is re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill in 1995 was the last Bill to be committed to a Select Committee.
  VI. Scottish Select Committee
  This procedure was first used early in 1996. It allows a Select Committee (appointed by the House with the members proposed by the Committee of Selection) to take evidence on Scottish Bills. The Committee may take written and oral evidence in Scotland and reports its evidence to the House. The Bill is then recommitted to one of the committees described above. A Scottish Select Committee may not make amendments to the Bill. Lords not of the Committee may attend meetings and participate in the proceedings, whether at Westminster or in Scotland.
  Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees just one question about the Committees in the Moses Room. I agree with the report of the Select Committee that these are working very well; indeed, I came in today expecting to chair the Committee on Scottish crofting to find that it had finished its deliberations yesterday. I believe that that is an example of the fact that the work is being dealt with expeditiously.
  However, I just wonder whether this is the right way to describe it. The report suggests that such Committees should be called "Grand Committees". I have no quarrel with that because I am sure that all Committees of your Lordships' House are grand in the sense that they are distinguished. But is that not rather a grandiloquent title for what is a fairly small but important Committee? Why cannot it be called a "Standing Committee" as similar committees are called in another place?
  Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees if I also made some comments at this point. He will then be able to answer all observations at the same time. The Select Committee is very bold when it refers to Committees taking place in the Moses Room in subparagraph(2). It suggests that the procedure, "allows all Lords to attend and participate fully".
  If noble Lords will cast their minds back to yesterday afternoon when the crofting Bill was being discussed in the Moses Room, it will be remembered that there was also a fairly major debate taking place in this Chamber on a very important topic. That debate was very well attended by a large number of your Lordships. Although we are supposedly very clever people, we do not have the opportunity as yet to be in two places at once. It is rather difficult for a number of noble Lords to attend business in the Chamber and also try to take an interest in what is being discussed in the Moses Room.

  557
  I should also like to refer to subparagraph (4) of the report which highlights the experiments of the Scottish Select Committees,
  "whereby a committee with a fixed membership takes evidence".
  I believe that that may be a very useful procedure for your Lordships' House. Indeed, where there is a need to take evidence on a Bill, it would be useful for a Select Committee to take evidence prior to consideration in Committee on the Floor of the House.
  One of the aspects that we all need to bear in mind is something to which I referred last week; namely, the two strengths of your Lordships' House compared with the other place. I refer to the fact that virtually all the business is taken on the Floor of the House; all amendments are discussed; and every Member of your Lordships' House has the opportunity to table amendments and to take part in debates on amendments. One of the problems with the purport of the report is that it pushes this House further down the road of taking business away from the Floor of the House. If we go too far down that road, I fear that we may lose some of the essential strengths of this Chamber compared with the other place.
  I hope that the remarks that I have made will be taken on board not only by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—I am sure that he will do so—but also by the Procedure Committee when it comes to consider specific recommendations on how individual items of business should be considered by the whole House.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to raise another point about the Moses Room; namely, that the acoustics are so bad that we need some extra hearing aids to enable us to hear what the Minister says.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I speak as one who took part in the Committee in the Moses Room yesterday. I hope that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Standing Committees in another place are limited as to those who may take part. Our Moses Room Committees—and I shall call them thus for the moment—are not limited. Indeed, any Member of this House can take part. Any Member of this House can table an amendment to a Bill which is being considered by one of those committees, and there is no question that all amendments which are tabled are not considered. There is no guillotine. I do not like the name "Grand Committee" and I have talked with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees about this. In the absence of any more suitable name I suggested Moses Room Committee, but as he pointed out—and I was glad to hear—these Committees will not necessarily invariably be held in the Moses Room in future. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was right to mention the bad acoustics in the Moses Room. In view of that, I should be glad if sometimes they could be held somewhere else. Under the circumstances, for the present we probably should go along with the phrase "Grand Committee".
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, a practical problem has been drawn to my attention in connection
  558
  with these Moses Room Committees. There is a shortage of trained reporters and there are certain problems with the Official Report. Extra staff have to be drafted in. I merely raise this matter so that consideration might be given to the possibility of increasing the establishment.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees note the point made by my noble friend Lord Rodgers about the extremely late sitting on the Police Bill which continued until 2 a.m.? How can that be reconciled with the reminder given by the Select Committee that,
  "whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 pm",
  when the example given by my noble friend shows that that limit was exceeded by four hours? The Select Committee also recognised,
  "that a significant improvement in sitting hours could come only with general support throughout the House".
  Is it not equally true to say that this general support must be matched by a willingness on the part of the Government not to table contentious legislation to be debated within a time-span which is far too short in view of the importance of the matters that are discussed?
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is probably right to say that there are few issues which cause greater controversy and discussion than naming something. The Procedure Committee had some difficulties with that aspect. In fact, the noble Lord will probably know that one of the suggestions made was for them to be called open Committees, but that was objected to for reasons which may well be all too obvious. We settled in the end for the title "Grand Committees". The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, also referred to that matter and to the discussions which she and I had. On the matter of Grand Committees, that name was thought to be in danger of causing confusion with another place where of course, there is a Scottish Grand Committee. However, the feeling was that the two Houses are separate and distinct as regards their committees. Therefore we settled for this name in the absence of anything better. If something absolutely splendid were to emerge, I am sure the Procedure Committee would give the matter further consideration.
  The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, raised the question of proceedings taking place in the Moses Room when major matters are being discussed in this Chamber. If notice were to be given in advance that that was to happen to a considerable extent, I have no doubt at all that, with the helpful discussions which go on between the usual channels, account would be taken of that sort of consideration so as to try to avoid such a situation if at all possible. However, of course the prime purpose of the Procedure Committee in suggesting these reforms, which emerged from Jellicoe and the group of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, on the workings of the House, was to save time in the Chamber. That remains the basic aim. Of course I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has said about that. I am sure that the usual channels will also take note of it.

  559
  As regards the noble Lord's point about Scottish Select Committees, again I note what he said. I am sure that the usual channels will note what he said. That is an option for particular Bills. It is not the case that every single Scottish Bill to come before your Lordships' House would automatically be dealt with in that way. It would have to be a matter of choice and it would have to depend upon the particular nature of a Bill. It is a permanent option which is available to your Lordships for dealing with these matters. However, it will be used on a selective and carefully discriminating basis.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to a possible shortage of reporters. I am not aware of that but I shall, of course, look into it. If anything needs to be done, I shall ask for the matter to be considered.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to the awkward acoustics in the Moses Room. I agree with him that they are not good. However, some improvement has been made. Complaints have been made about the Moses Room. It is a difficult room from that point of view. Improvements have been made in the acoustics there over the years but I shall look into the matter further and see whether further improvements are possible.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to last night's late sitting. I hesitate to make any predictions but tonight could be another late sitting. We are concerned with another important matter in the Chamber this afternoon. It depends upon the will of the House. That is perfectly clear. The noble Lord fairly pointed out that this is a matter which is referred to in the report of the Procedure Committee which is now before your Lordships. It is the case that some time has been saved by the new procedures which have been introduced. However, again, I am sure that all those of us who have dealings with the Business of the House have noted what he said. Certainly every attempt will be made to avoid that situation.
  My next point is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. I draw attention to the fact that among the procedures suggested to your Lordships by the Procedure Committee is the one about Friday sittings; namely, that those should be used as a means of limiting late nights in the House. Again that is something which will probably be pursued perhaps a little more than it has been in the past. I take note of what the noble Lord has said, and certainly every attempt will be made to meet those desirable ends. I believe I have covered all of the points which have been raised by various noble Lords. I hope that I have done so.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  3.28 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill or to the other three Bills standing in my name. I also understand
  560
  that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment to any of the Bills or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
  Report received.

  Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill [H.L.]
  Read a third time.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in proposing the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I should like to thank all noble Lords who took an interest and a part in the Bill. In particular I thank the Minister for his reaction to our suggestions. I hope that we have now produced a Bill in a form which could be taken up in a later Parliament either in another place or possibly again in your Lordships'

  561
  House and become an Act. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  3.32 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
  Clause 11 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms, ammunition and ancillary equipment]:
  The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 33: Page 6, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—
  ("(a) which they lawfully had in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996; or
  (b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled lawfully to have in their possession,").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 which stand in my name. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 38 which stands in the name of the Minister, and Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Before doing so, having not spoken on the Bill before, I should make it clear that I have no personal involvement or interest in handguns. I use a shotgun for sport and some of my farm staff are licensed to carry rifles. By profession I am a chartered surveyor with some involvement in compensation matters, hence my interest in this part of the Bill. I am the father of three children, two of whom are at primary school.
  I thank the Minister for her courteous response to letters that I sent her. She well knows my views and some of the reservations that I have on other parts of the Bill. My starting point on compensation under Clause 11 is Lord Cullen's report. With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may quote from paragraph 9.108:
  "No assessment of what should be done would be complete without considering what would be proportionate and just, having regard on the one hand to the scale of risk and on the other the implications of one course of action or another."
  At paragraph 9.111 the report continues:
  "It is necessary to decide what risk is acceptable, bearing in mind that some risk is an inevitable feature of daily life. Against the risk to society has to be balanced the loss of freedom of the individual and the other implications which 1 mentioned earlier".
  It is clear that Lord Cullen felt that it was for Parliament and government to weigh the matters in the balance and that deliberations would be incomplete without a process that he himself felt unable to undertake. I merely add to that by suggesting that the process should be a transparent one with the entire
  562
  methodology, documentation and basis on which considerations and decisions are made laid open for scrutiny.
  I note that paragraph 2(a) of the Money Resolution to the Bill specifically covers,
  "property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act",
  meaning this Bill when it becomes an Act, and at paragraph 2(b),
  "any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act".
  So I am surprised at the somewhat narrower view that I discern was taken by the Home Secretary in another place on 4th December last. He made some comments which warrant further scrutiny. At col. 1100 of the Official Report he compared situations where one could say that "on all precedent" compensation should be paid with other situations where "on a proper analysis of the case" it should not. He said that if the effect was to deprive people of property, or the use of it, they should be compensated. I say "Hear, hear" to that.
  However, at col. 1101 he sought to distinguish compensation where an individual holds an object which then becomes unlawful or unsaleable from the activities of businesses and clubs which would not be able to be compensated. Yet those bodies also hold equipment, land, buildings and contractual liabilities which, while not necessarily made unlawful by the Bill, are devoted to narrow purposes which effectively may become so, or are unsaleable, worthless or a liability as a direct consequence of the Bill.
  The Home Secretary then compared the phasing out or banning of products to the example of how businesses were all subject to the whim of the regulator as an occupational hazard. But he did not cite any comparable instance in which 80 per cent. of a bespoke activity with no alternative function was, on the Government's own estimates, to be discontinued. None of his comparisons are ad idem with the present case. At col. 1102 he concluded with a statement which is worth repeating. I apologise to the Committee for quoting again. He said:
  "The Government have a fundamental obligation to protect public safety. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if, on every occasion that a decision has to be made, the Government were obliged to pay compensation for the business losses that resulted".
  With respect, the much larger duty of government is to ensure justice and equity. There is an overarching obligation to act reasonably and with due regard for the actions taken. Government may not act capriciously or to the unreasonable detriment of any individual or group. Without that there is no equitable or sustainable system of law and order in any sense of the term, and certainly no guarantee of public safety arising therefrom. The licensing function of government in relation to firearms and shooting premises is part of that duty and it is impossible, I submit, to ignore the reliance that has been placed by many people on the continuation of that system and the investments that they have made.
  The Home Secretary's uniquely narrow interpretation falls a good way short of the principles of fair play that should properly apply. I put it to the Minister that her right honourable friend has used a lesser principle to overrule a much greater one in a manner that I find

  563
  somewhat untenable. It is indeed a very grave matter to make a statutory assumption that individuals who were licensed and regulated one minute have in the next moment ceased to be fit and proper persons. That is an unprecedented shift of policy especially when based on theoretical public safety arguments in the light of a report that primarily identifies a major regulatory system failure.
  In another place on 12th November 1986, the honourable Member for Swansea East referred to cases on human rights—Nold v. Commission, and a business loss case, Lithgow v. United Kingdom. However, there seems to have been no answer to those points which indicates to me that the compensation terms of the Bill may not be entirely well founded. I am no lawyer but I hope that the Minister can enlighten me on that at some stage, although perhaps not today; I did not mention the point in my letter in which I set out in broad terms the issues that I would raise.
  I regret that the Government have not seen fit to carry out a public assessment of proportionality and cost benefit as suggested by Lord Cullen. It seems to me that that is one area where they have not gone beyond the terms of Lord Cullen's report but have omitted to undertake a significant part of his recommendation. A large part of the Bill is about economic and personal cost; and proper compensation forms part of that balance.
  I have heard various costs mentioned. An official figure of £ 150 million as the total cost seems to have grown from a rather smaller sum in the middle of last year, and far higher figures are voiced at an unofficial level. In another place last week, Miss Ann Widdecombe admitted in a Written Answer that the Government have no real idea how much all this will cost. How on earth is the Committee supposed to deal with a Bill, the consequences of which are in such doubt, when no costed estimates have been placed before us?
  From my professional involvement in compensation matters, I well understand and sympathise with the Government's problem: an unreasonable drain on the public purse versus the risk that activities involving handguns, if not the guns themselves, may simply disappear from sight. However, in all such cases the benefit of any reasonable doubt should be given to those whose loss clearly flows from the proposals. Any overriding public safety argument demands nothing less.
  On the question of precedent, I discern that there can be few occasions when government reaction to an event, such as the tragedy at Dunblane, results in an accepted and regulated sport, leisure pursuit and, by association, business activity becoming at a stroke so inherently dangerous to the greater public safety that the proposed level of near-total cessation must be procured. If, as it is claimed, the tragedy justifies exceptional measures, then it follows that the circumstances of compensation are also wholly exceptional; and exceptional circumstances set no general precedent.
  It is well established in law that there are circumstances when it is proper for compensation to extend not only to those who are directly deprived by
  564
  law of some property or possession, but also to those whose businesses are affected, or to circumstances where a loss occurs which, but for statute, would have been actionable. Two examples from the compulsory purchase code come to mind. They are "injurious affection", when the capital value of some other property is affected, and "disturbance", where other costs not directly related to property values are involved.
  The entitlement to compensation where no land is taken where a property is adversely affected by certain physical factors such as noise, artificial light and so on is provided for in Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Highways legislation also provides for compensation for loss or damage in certain circumstances arising out of highway works. Last year a private water undertaking paid compensation to three of my clients (and my fees) for pure business losses following a temporary closure of the A.24.
  Basic human rights demand proper compensation, particularly when the proposals go beyond what Lord Cullen recommended. We are not considering some shady activity such as cock fighting, even less the "holy water shops" referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but an honourable sport of centuries-old standing regulated by government.
  On what grounds do the Government distinguish the situation of a householder or business adversely affected by, let us say, a new bypass from that of a gun club whose operation is forced to close as a result of the withdrawal of its licence and the banning of the guns which make its very existence possible? Is not this summary and premature removal by law of a privilege by rescinding a licence obtained and paid for in good faith by the applicant, a law-abiding citizen, somewhat different from the norms of phasing out defective products, outlawing harmful substances or banning the use of potentially dangerous upholstery material, to name but three? Further, were there not perfectly acceptable alternatives in each case? I am afraid that I do not follow the Government's logic.
  There are compelling reasons why compensation provisions should be fair and seen to be fair. The tragedy of Dunblane and the haste on the part of the Government to act cannot justify parsimony or risk a bitter legacy of shabby treatment in some other direction, even less give reason for avenging 18 deaths by exacting retribution from more than 50, 000 other admittedly innocent people. Two wrongs do not make a right.
  Nor do I accept the Government's position that there is no precedent for compensation for business losses, losses from clubs or indeed consequential losses. The example of CJD was quoted; however, I prefer the analogy of the phasing in of the national non-domestic rate and the period allowed for the upgrading of abattoirs, when time was given to meet the additional commitment. Handguns are no different. The logical consequence of denying that and insisting on immediate withdrawal—I stress the immediacy angle—is nothing more nor less than full compensation.
  Amendment No. 33 is designed to ferret out the meaning of the formulae of the words in the Bill, "by virtue of firearm certificates", and the analogous term,
  "by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers".
  To what extent will firearms and ammunition be treated as "by virtue" in these contexts and, more to the point, at what juncture will the same articles be treated otherwise? The same formula of words also appears in subsection (7) in reference to ancillary equipment. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the same questions in relation to that.
  This amendment would establish the material fact leading to compensation; namely, lawful ownership of a gun on 16th October 1996 howsoever that lawful ownership arose. But my purpose is to uncover a wider range of issues.
  I understand that certain types of ammunition have a use in particular circumstances of competition and may be usable in rifles or pistols. It may be termed dual purpose ammunition. If such ammunition is possessed but used only in a pistol, is it held by virtue of a licence or not? If a dealer stands possessed of spares for pistol repairs which could be assembled to make up further weapons, what is the position regarding those? I could point to other anomalies, including the hiatus that appears to arise over compensation if, for instance, a club where a gun is held cannot, after a period of trying to do so, perhaps due to the costs and process of upgrading its security provisions, stay in business thus preventing it legally holding firearms and necessitating their surrender to the police but perhaps outside the period provided for in the surrender and compensation scheme. What happens then?
  Amendment No. 34 endeavours to provide for the assessment of compensation by reference to a date prior to the day when an effect on the market for firearms could have occurred as a result of news and media coverage of the Dunblane incident and the initial response to it of politicians and the public. There are such precedents in the world of compensation theory and practice in which the effect on market values of the events that lead up to the circumstances of compensation are to be eliminated from the calculation. That serves to prevent manifest injustice to compensation claimants and eliminates the risk of the compensating body manipulating the circumstances of compensation so as to procure an unfairly low basis for payment. I do not suggest that the Government have that in mind; however, it is one matter that has developed over the years as a proper way of dealing with compensation. So if, for instance, a date for the Home Secretary's announcement is chosen, I should think that by that time—other noble Lords with more knowledge will be able to tell the Committee—the market will be non-existent. It will be very difficult to assess the value of any handgun on the basis of such a date and there may be unfairness in settling values. I invite the Minister's comments on that point also.
  Amendment No. 35 sets out to explore the extent of the ancillary equipment which will rank for compensation. I have in mind the handgun enthusiast
  566
  who makes his own ammunition and for that sole purpose may have some specialist manufacturing equipment. What of that equipment and any spare parts held; or of cleaning and maintenance tools, the secure carrying case, the target papers, sighting scope, holster and competition sights? Will those also rank for compensation? Will they qualify as ancillary equipment, or merely the gun itself and the ammunition, amounting perhaps to a fraction of the total value of the equipment held by an individual?
  Amendment No. 36 seeks to address those items that are lawfully held but may not need to be on a licence as such or even specifically mentioned on it, but which become inadvertently or deliberately unlawful or obsolete by virtue of the operation of the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on that point as well.
  There should be seen to be no expropriation in the compensation provisions of this Bill. It should cover all matters where loss can be shown to be attributable to its provisions. The courts are well able to determine cause and effect in these special circumstances. Noble Lords may take issue with the wording of my amendment but it gives me an opportunity to voice very real fears.
  I have little to say on the amendments of other noble Lords. In connection with Amendment No. 38, which is grouped with mine, I shall have to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I wonder when we shall see the details of the scheme referred to in that amendment. For precisely the reasons that the Minister gave last Thursday on the matter of the referral of Clause 6, I believe that the details of the compensation scheme should be known, discussed and approved by the time the Bill is law and comes into force. I strongly support the sentiments behind Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
  I have a few further questions. Does the Minister not agree that there should be some recognition of the consequential losses and problems caused to clubs and businesses as a result of this far-reaching Bill and its quite exceptional circumstances? Does she agree that there should be relief from all non-domestic rates for property used by businesses which are forced to close? This is, after all, a property tax. Does she not agree that there should be grants towards the cost of obtaining planning consent for change of use of gun club premises forced to close? Does she agree that there should be some tax relief, the ability to write off capital allowances in this and previous years and other measures to mitigate the effects of ongoing liabilities? Does she also agree that there should be special assistance to help with redundancy payments where businesses and clubs are forced to close?
  All these are matters which are crucial to fair play, honesty and the up-front way in which a Bill such as this should be dealt with. I beg to move.
  Lord Gisborough: It seems that all these amendments are to be spoken to together; I shall therefore speak on Amendment No. 40. It has long been recognised that Parliament does not expropriate private property without compensating those affected. Yet the plight of small businesses in the gun trade which will

  567
  be put out of business by the Bill has been ignored by the Government. Payment for stock is one thing; loss of a business, with no proposal by the Government to compensate, is quite another.
  The trade faces serious financial hardship but the Bill provides no compensation for the substantial loss of value to businesses which the Bill will cause. Compensation provisions should apply to people severely hurt by the devaluation of assets other than the banned guns and their accessories. Compensation is offered for stock but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. This is not just an occupational hazard; it is a sudden imposition of law that will take away such a large amount of trade that an enterprise could become non-viable.
  Loss of employment within the industry is another serious consequence of the Bill. Returns from 163 dealers show an estimated loss of 155 jobs. That, if reflected across the whole 3, 000 businesses, implies job losses of some 3,000.
  I am sure that the Bill will have a devastating effect on a significant minority of people. Natural justice requires that those people are entitled to receive proper compensation for assets which are confiscated through no fault of their own. Many have given personal guarantees on leases which they have signed and which they will have to meet over the years.
  These businesses cannot easily diversify. What alternative use will there be for a purpose-built shooting range once the Bill has taken 80 per cent. of legally held guns out of circulation? Some businesses will have been financed by personal guarantees, with terrible consequences for the guarantor.
  At Report stage in another place the Home Secretary said that, so far as he was aware, there was no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occurred as a result of Government legislation. He ignores the compensation given to farmers, as my noble friend mentioned, as a result of BSE regulations. Farmers were able to carry on farming with other enterprises. He ignores the £ 118 million offered to the rendering industry. He ignores the precedent established in Australia earlier this year, a Commonwealth country with a similar legal system and whose case law is often cited as a precedent before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The Australian Prime Minister, during the passage of legislation on the prohibition of rifles and guns, said that the Government had a duty to pay fair and proper compensation, including compensation to gun dealers who had suffered a loss of value to their hitherto lawful businesses.
  The following principles were to apply to dealers for loss of business: compensation was to be available to any dealer whose business included sale, repair or importation of firearms; such dealers were to arrange prescribed and certified valuation of loss and were to recover reasonable cost of valuation; and they were to accept the valuation which would be subject to audit. There were a considerable number of other conditions and requirements.
  568
  The Australians have now found that the generous compensation to owners for the withdrawal of automatic weapons is costing far more than anticipated, as will be the case here. Perversely, the compensation is being used to legally purchase bolt-action and lever-action guns which can fire almost as fast as automatics. As a rapid-fire marksman in the Army myself, I can testify to the possible accuracy of high-speed shooting. Similarly, once pistols have been withdrawn here, at great cost to the nation, no doubt keen marksmen in this country will purchase other weapons which they are allowed to keep and so maintain their sport in some other way although they will not necessarily be able to use the same ranges. The proposed expenditure will not therefore have much effect.
  The mass-murder tragedies have each taken place with a different weapon: New South Wales with a rifle; Middlesbrough with a knife; Sullivan with a flame-thrower; Wolverhampton with a machete; and Monkseaton with a shotgun. There remain chainsaws, pitchforks, poison, petrol bombs, swerving into a queue with a motor car, explosion and other weapons including, incidentally, a cricket bat. In only one of those tragedies was a pistol used. There are as many ways of committing mass murder as there are holes in a sieve. Today it has been reported that a baby was stabbed in its pram.
  To withdraw legally held pistols cannot do more than scratch the surface of the problem of mass murder. It does not begin to stop another tragedy with an illegally held pistol. It is like stopping one hole in a sieve, at a cost of perhaps £500 million to the country, while leaving all the other methods of mass murder unaffected. It is an expensive but purely cosmetic exercise to satisfy an understandable emotion, as a result of which a large number of businesses will be bankrupted.
  My amendment gives the Government the opportunity to say how the buy-in will contribute to stopping further attacks by any of the other weapons available: shotguns, rifles, chainsaws and so on. If they can justify the expenditure of some £500 million for a useless confiscation, how can they justify not paying compensation for business losses?
  It may be inappropriate for this House to suggest increased expenditure on compensating dealers, which is a matter for the other place, but it cannot be wrong to tell the other place that it is wasting money in the first place. Perhaps the Government can explain how the reduction in the number of legally held pistols affects the prospects of another mass murder with an illegally held pistol, there being about four of them to every legally held one. There is all this cost, distress and damage to plug just one hole in the sieve. It is not more legislation that is needed but proper application of the existing law. If innocent gun dealers and range owners are to be gratuitously distressed, they should at least be adequately compensated.
  4 p.m.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: My noble friend Lord Swansea has agreed that I should move Amendment No. 39, which deals with compensation for clubs and associations. I begin by declaring an interest as the current chairman of the Firearms Consultive Committee.

  569
  I firmly believe that the present plans will lead to gross injustice. Many of the worst hit by the Bill will be ordinary club members who have pitched together to run their clubs or ranges. Many of these individuals will remain liable for long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges which will be forced to close by this Bill. A survey of 139 clubs showed that 71 per cent. of those clubs will not reach the Government's requirements for security. They will have to close, making an otherwise valuable asset worthless. It will leave many people bankrupt. The Government must put that right. A return from 126 clubs shows that they are expected to suffer financial losses as a result of the changes to the tune of £31.24 million in total. On the basis of 2, 067 clubs, the total loss will therefore be over £64 million.
  The worst hit in the case of clubs will be individuals such as those who have given personal guarantees. In many cases, that responsibility has been undertaken without any commercial consideration or personal gain.
  I turn to a matter touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The European Court of Human Rights has stated:
  "The taking of property in the public interest without any compensation is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances"—
  these are exceptional circumstances, I suppose—
  "A fair balance has to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. A disproportionate burden should not be placed on individual owners".
  That quotation comes from Lithgow v. United Kingdom in 1986.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the cost of this operation will be higher than the original offer from the Treasury of £25 million to £50 million. As we all know, it has risen from that figure to £150 million. The Government originally proposed to offer the market value of banned guns prior to the announcement of the Government's intention to legislate. I believe that they have since been advised by their lawyers that they are obliged to include ancillary equipment, which will have no value once the gun to which it relates is banned. The FCC has been consulted on that issue, although not entirely in this context.
  We need to learn from the Australian experience. It offers an insight into what can be expected in the United Kingdom. In Victoria state alone, 14 collection sites were set up. The weekly destruction of guns will continue until the end of the year, as only 10 per cent. of the total weapons expected under the amnesty have been destroyed. The crunch comes in that the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, has already criticised the federal government for not providing enough money to run the firearms buy-back scheme. He said that the compensation payments in general and the disposal of surrendered weapons was costing more than expected. That, I think, must be fairly obvious. Those responsible for administering the scheme are now having to face those real practical problems, as the government will
  570
  have to do. The Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Bill McGrath, has summarised the feeling among his colleagues:
  "The whole thing was done in too much haste and there was not enough proper thought".
  We seem to have heard that sentiment echoed in this Chamber.
  I and many others feel very strongly indeed that the Government should correct this injustice. I urge my noble friend to accept this amendment. Let me give just one example of many. Dave Richardson of the 10th Battalion Suffolk Home Guard Rifle and Pistol Club in Sudbury writes:
  "We've just taken out a £6, 000 loan. We own the freehold, about 6 acres or so … We've just rebuilt the club house and installed a new 11 kva automatic generator. The 3 main ranges are all equipped with electro-magnetic turning targets. We consider the complex before the legislation to have been worth £200,000+ and it is now effectively worthless".
  I urge the Minister to try to accept this amendment. A great injustice is being done to those who will suffer loss, as has been described over the past few minutes by a number of noble Lords. I commend the amendment.
  Lord Kimball: If the Committee adds Amendment No. 39 to the Bill, we shall be able to build on what has already been achieved for pistol shooting. We should bear in mind that in another place the Government have already undertaken to give compensation for ancillary equipment used by the larger calibre revolvers. That is the equipment mostly used by the hand loaders. Some of it is extremely expensive. It has been a great relief to many people to know that that compensation is agreed. It is also agreed that someone who owns a .22 rimfire pistol, which will be legal in future, but can no longer find a pistol range which is still operative in his own area, will be entitled to receive compensation.
  Amendment No. 39 in particular deals not so much with compensation but with a fair and just payment for what amounts to confiscation. If someone's livelihood has been removed and that person has been injuriously affected, the principles of compulsory purchase apply 100 per cent. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has already quoted the statement from the European Court of Human Rights.
  In another place the Government argued that many legislative actions do not necessarily justify compensation. Cars which fail the MoT test were mentioned. If one buys a cheap car, one accepts the risk that it will probably fail the MoT test in the not too distant future. Fire precautions were mentioned. Many boarding houses receive substantial grants from tourist boards and other development authorities towards updating their fire precautions and noise abatement arrangements. The point is that people with a car or a boarding house that suffered a fire or a factory with noise level requirements all have the option of continuing their business in a modified form. The pistol shooters have no option because their ranges are confiscated.
  There is one other helpful thing that the noble Baroness could do or might be encouraged to say today. I believe that many of these ranges need not be

  571
  compensated for if, rather than the ranges themselves being fortified so that the .22 pistols can be kept there, the guns are allowed to be kept at the premises of the local gun dealers. Many of them own the ranges and their premises are already fortified and up to standard. Without that concession, we are in fact confiscating a very large number of facilities for which people deserve full and proper compensation.
  Lord Burton: Let me raise two small points on the issue of compensation for weapons. We might perhaps obtain some enlightenment on the subject.
  A club may feel that it should try to remain open and comply with the new regulations. But planning may well take a considerable time and finally be turned down; or perhaps after some considerable time there may be another reason why it would not be able to carry on. Eventually, surely, the members of that club will not be able to get any compensation for their weapons because the period of time will have expired. I wonder whether that is fair.
  There is also the question of who will do the valuation for the weapons when they come in and how long it will take. I suspect that that may take quite a considerable time. I feel that this matter should be looked at.
  Lord Monson: I should like, somewhat anticlimactically, to speak to my Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, which find themselves in this enormous grouping, before I turn to the somewhat more important amendment, Amendment No. 40.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 is to ensure that owners of .22 pistols, who find that they have to surrender them because their clubs cannot afford the extremely expensive security systems that the Bill will oblige them to install, are compensated at market value in the same way as owners of larger bore pistols will be compensated. It is true that the Home Secretary has apparently said that they will be compensated on an ex gratia basis and, what is more, at market value. But it is surely more normal and proper to write such a guarantee formally into the Bill.
  Furthermore, I understand that nothing has been said so far about compensation for accessories for those .22 pistols, accessories which in some instances may have cost more than the pistol itself. So I look to the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, for cast iron guarantees on proper compensation for both .22 pistols and their accessories.
  Without minimising in any way the undoubted merits of Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, so brilliantly moved by my noble friend Lord Lytton, I turn to Amendment No. 40. On 24th October of last year in her winding-up speech at the end of the first day's debate on the gracious speech, referring specifically to the proposed firearms Bill which a number of the speakers had mentioned, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated categorically:
  "We shall compensate both"—
  note the word "both"—
  "owners and dealers".—[Official Report, 24/10/96; col. 98.]
  572
  That official pronouncement has only one possible meaning, notably that the Government undertake to compensate dealers not only in their capacity as owners—that goes without saying, of course they would do that—but also other than in their capacity as owners. The statement would otherwise make no sense whatsoever. It would be as tautological as saying in another hypothetical context: "We intend to ban both motor vehicles and pick-up trucks". That would be an absolute nonsense, since the first embraces the second.
  From time to time most of us make off-the-cuff assertions which cannot later be sustained—Ministers, by the nature of their heavy workload, more so than most of us—but this is not one of those occasions. The speech which concentrated most upon firearms finished one hour and 20 minutes before the statement of the noble Baroness regarding compensation for dealers, so clearly civil servants had vetted it and may even have drafted it. For this reason I believe that the Government have a constitutional as well as a moral obligation to compensate dealers for the collapse of their businesses through no fault of their own.
  Earl Peel: I have my name down to Amendment No. 40 with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I should like to speak to that amendment, although I say first of all that I have very considerable sympathy for Amendment No. 39 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea.
  I start by saying that I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball when he welcomes the fact that the Government have introduced increased compensation for certain aspects of firearms and accessories. We very much welcome that but, as other noble Lords have already said, there is no shadow of doubt that this Bill is going to bring great hardship and great difficulty to many businesses.
  I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject and the rules, if indeed there are any, are blurred. To what extent the Government should be responsible for compensation to businesses due to direct legislation is in fact an extremely difficult point, and I understand the Government's problems. I understand the difficulties we have in trying to reach a compromise on this matter.
  The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave some very good examples, as he would, being a thoroughly professional person who understands these things in a way that I certainly do not. I was very much taken by some of the examples that the noble Earl gave. However, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, in the past when businesses have been closed down for whatever reason they have had time to adjust. In this case gun trades and gun businesses have had no opportunity whatsoever to do so. It is a simple fact that so far as many are concerned there will be no product and, indeed, there will be no customer. We cannot lose sight of that fact.
  It has been argued that businesses which will suffer from the outlawing of large calibre handguns will find alternative markets, switching to .22 calibre weapons. This is extremely unlikely, for two main reasons. First, the security regulations attached to new licensed clubs will deter many potential members. Secondly, there are likely to be many fewer clubs because of the expense of having to comply with these new regulations.

  573
  I have declared an interest during the course of this Bill on a number of occasions in that I am president of the Gun Trade Association. I attended a meeting in Birmingham before the Bill came before your Lordships' House and I have spoken to many of these people whose businesses are going to suffer under this Bill—real people, not just fictitious names, but people who are genuinely going to suffer from this Bill. There are businesses that have been built up over years, in some cases over generations. They find it quite incredible that their very livelihoods can be affected in such a way, affected, as they see it, by a madman and by a system that failed purely because the existing law was not adhered to, through no fault of their own. I am bound to say that they find it equally incredible that they will suffer through what they perceive as hasty legislation, with no consultation and no time to make any adjustment, as I said earlier. Also, they find it quite extraordinary that a learned Lord's studious recommendations on this particular matter have been ignored.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that, in addition to straightforward business activities, there are mortgages and loans which will have to be met. These will have a heavy bearing on a number of people. Precedent or no precedent, I believe that we have to look at every single case in its entirety. This is a different case, and I firmly believe that given the circumstances in which we find ourselves we have a moral obligation to help these people. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I, too, have put my name to Amendment No. 40 and, like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I have considerable sympathy with other amendments dealing with compensation to pistol owners and to clubs. However, as I made perfectly clear in my Second Reading speech, I am no expert in these matters; nor, indeed, do I represent any interest. What I do know is that over the past days and weeks I have received shoals of letters from perfectly ordinary people who are concerned about their sport and the losses that they will incur personally and that their businesses will incur as a result of this legislation, which I believe to be considerably unjust. That is why I have taken an interest. I am not a shooter, as I said; I never have been a shooter and I am never likely to be a shooter.
  What I am concerned about, and what every other Member of this House should be concerned about, is that legislation should be just and it should be fair. This legislation is neither. It was conceived in haste and it was cobbled together in response to a campaign based on emotion; it was understandable emotion, but nevertheless it was based on emotion rather than on logic, fairness and rationality. That is why I believe we should have given a lot more consideration to this in the House of Commons and in this House. Indeed, the Government should have given it a lot more consideration over a much longer period of time before they brought it to Parliament in the first place. There has been no time and little effort has been made to
  574
  consult with those who will be most hurt financially by this Bill by the loss of value of their pistols, by the bankruptcy of their clubs and, worst of all, the loss of businesses and, with the businesses, jobs. We ought all to be concerned—indeed, we are all concerned—about the loss of business and the loss of jobs.
  The suggested compensation arrangements, as far as they are known, will be grossly inadequate. They will be tantamount, as some other noble Lords have mentioned, in some respects to simple confiscation. I find that odd coming from a Conservative Government. It would not come from a Labour Government. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite will have that point very much in mind.
  I cannot believe that the people of Dunblane or the newspapers which have campaigned for this legislation would want, in addition to the severe restriction of the sport of pistol shooting, to see people's assets slashed, their businesses destroyed and gunsmiths thrown onto the unemployment scrapheap. We have to come back to the fact that Dunblane was the result of the actions of a madman who would not have possessed legally held firearms but for the neglect and misjudgment of a senior policeman. We must keep on making the point that it was not the guns that killed; it was the man who pulled the trigger who killed and had the intention to kill. We must never forget that.
  Can it really be the action of a democratic society as a result of those actions of that madman, that ordinary, decent law-abiding citizens should be disadvantaged in every possible way, especially since they have not been consulted and the Bill has been rushed through the House of Commons—indeed, rushed into print—without proper consideration?
  I think it is extraordinary that I, as a Labour Member—and not a "new Labour" Member but a straight Labour Member to boot—should have to nag and chivvy a Conservative Government to pay proper compensation to the very sort of people whom one would expect the Government to support. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take account of everything that has been said. Although I believe that the Bill is awful and unjust, I hope that the Government will at least agree to pay compensation—proper and adequate compensation—to all those who are being and will be disadvantaged by it.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to support all the amendments in this grouping except for the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which deal with compensation.
  There is one other aspect about compensation in this matter which has not been fully touched on. It is generally agreed that compensation is paid when an Act of Parliament results in the public good; for instance, when a road which the public may require has been put through one's property, or whatever. But there is a growing realisation all over the country, in your Lordships' House and, I understand, in the other place, that the Bill will not achieve its aim of saving lives or of preventing another terrible tragedy such as Dunblane.

  575
  In those circumstances, the pistol shooters do not want compensation. They will want to go on with their sport. No amount of compensation can recompense them for what the Bill will deprive them of. Therefore, if these pistol shooters—these thousands of people—are forced to take compensation, it must be unusually generous. That is thanks to this most unusually bad and flawed Bill.
  Baroness Blatch: Before responding to the amendments in this group on the Marshalled List in the names of various noble Lords, if they will forgive me, too numerous to mention, it may help the Committee if I turn first to my own amendments, Amendments Nos. 37 and 38, and outline the arrangements the Government propose for compensation.
  The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value, as at before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's announcement—repeated in this House—on 16th October, to people who hold firearm certificates for the higher-calibre handguns which the Bill will prohibit.
  To qualify for compensation an owner will have to have held his firearm on a firearms' certificate or have held it by virtue of being a registered firearms' dealer, or have been contracted to acquire his or her gun on 16th October, and to surrender it to the police. Owners will be able to choose between three compensation options.
  First, there will be a basic flat rate figure which an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, we are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council the preparation of a list of values for the most commonly held types of handgun. These figures will be higher than the basic compensation figure and owners who hand in a gun of one of these types will be able to claim that value.
  Thirdly, there will be owners whose guns do not fit within these arrangements or who want to obtain their own valuation. We intend that those who wish to will be able to submit valuations which they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun.
  Owners will also be entitled to compensation on a similar market value basis for ammunition, including expanding ammunition, which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which has no use other than in connection with prohibited higher-calibre handguns.
  We are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council what these accessories will be and their values. The details are not fixed yet but examples might be reloading equipment for cartridges, specialised holsters and spare parts.
  There will also be ex-gratia payments—separate from the compensation scheme—for shooters who own .22 rimfire and other small-calibre handguns which will not become prohibited by the Bill but which the Bill will require to be kept in licensed pistol clubs. Owners who cannot find a club to keep their pistol in, or who choose
  576
  not to join a club, will be able to claim an ex-gratia payment for their gun. But this will, as I say, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme.
  The Government have listened to the concerns raised earlier during the passage of the Bill, both by noble Lords and in another place, about the nature of the compensation scheme which is needed on this occasion. We have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 standing in my name will enable parliamentary oversight to be given to the scheme.
  A previous scheme introduced following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to compensate owners who surrendered their semi-automatic rifles was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but nevertheless was successful, with most owners receiving a fair rate within a reasonable timescale. A later scheme in 1992 and 1993 made payments to people who surrendered disguised firearms—for instance, walking stick guns—after these had become prohibited, except for collectors, following the Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 1992. This too was successful in terms of fair payments being made in good time. But it was similarly not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place.
  This provision would not affect the principles of the compensation arrangements. The current Clause 11 of the Bill sets out those things for which compensation will be payable. Both in this House and in another place very full consideration has been given to this issue, and we have explained why the Government have decided that compensation should be paid for weapons, ammunition and other ancillary equipment. This amendment will enable the details of the scheme to be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I believe it is all to the good that the draft scheme should be brought before both Houses. Can the noble Baroness say whether the scheme will be amendable? That is the important point. Will it be amendable by one or by both Houses?
  Baroness Blatch: My understanding of the procedures for discussing orders that come before the House is that it can reject or accept them. Any influence that is brought to bear takes place during the consultation period. The House can reject a scheme and then it would be for the government of the day to go away and reconsider the details.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In fact the House would have to take an H-bomb to the matter if they want to bring back another scheme. Is there no way in which we can have a draft scheme brought before the House which we can discuss and amend?
  Baroness Blatch: As far as I know there is not an official mechanism for amending a scheme. There will

  577
  be a draft scheme laid before the House and there will be an opportunity for people to pray in aid against it. I have to be advised by the usual channels. I am no expert in parliamentary procedures, but to my knowledge it is not possible to amend an order in this House. I am receiving an affirmative nod from the Clerk at the Table.
  The Earl of Lytton: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but maybe I missed it or she is about to get to the point. I would particularly like to know when the scheme is going to be laid before Parliament.
  Baroness Blatch: I am unable to say. I know the particular concern that the noble Earl posed when he was speaking to his amendments that he would like the scheme to be laid before the House before this Bill completes its progress through both Houses. I promise that I shall come back as soon as possible after this stage of the Bill is completed with some idea of what the timescale will be. I cannot be definitive at this moment.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Does my noble friend understand that she is therefore asking us to accept this Bill without knowing what the terms of compensation will be? That adds insult to injury owing to the fact that we shall not even know what the terms will be for the security of gun club premises. We are told that 71 per cent. of the clubs will be put out of business; but there may be many more. We are being asked to take so much on trust. It is very difficult to proceed if we do not have information on these two vital areas as to what the security arrangements are going to be and what the compensation will be.
  Baroness Blatch: A good deal of information is available to my noble friend which has been put on the record more than once—that is to say, the market value from a particular date will be the base for payment. The categories of items that will be compensated for are subject to amendment. We have many amendments before the Committee today. There will be an order and a full debate in the House. Both Houses will have the opportunity to accept or reject the terms of the compensation arrangements. I can say no more than that. There is not another mechanism other than during the consultation process and/or at the time of considering the order when both this House and another place will have an opportunity to have their say.
  Lord Gisborough: Can my noble friend say whether there are plans to compensate those people who have, for example, committed themselves to long leases?
  Baroness Blatch: They are not included in the compensation scheme as I have set it out. Again, there are a number of amendments and that particular point is explicit in some of them. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of today's business. It is a matter to be determined by the Committee.
  I now turn to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which would remove the precise terms in Clause 11 which specify
  578
  that the persons eligible for payments should be firearm certificate holders or registered firearms dealers. I am not sure that I see any benefit in removing this fair and, I would argue, reasonable qualifying criteria if the Government are to make substantial payments to the persons concerned. Those people whose firearm certificates may have expired since 16th October and who hold their high calibre pistols temporarily on a Section 7 permit will still meet the laid down criteria and will qualify for compensation.
  Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which removes the wording "firearms prohibited" from Clause 11 (5)(a) in favour of the phrase "any firearms" would bring ancillary equipment belonging to the owners of small calibre pistols into the compensation scheme, which is the intention of the noble Earl. Point 22 pistols will not be banned and the Government have taken the view, and gone to some lengths in this Bill, to ensure that .22 pistol shooting can continue to take place in conditions of safety. Unlike accessories for high calibre handguns, therefore, .22 accessories will continue to have a use. There will continue to be a market for them both for gun dealers and for individuals who give up .22 shooting, but have accessories which they would wish to get rid of.
  The last of the noble Earl's amendments, Amendment No. 34, introduces the earlier date of 11th March 1996 immediately prior to Dunblane, as the date to assess market values for the purposes of the compensation scheme. The Government cannot be held responsible for fluctuations in a market over which they have no direct control. The Bill specifically refers to 16th October because this is the date of the Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, and that must be right.
  Perhaps I may refer to a point made by a number of Members of the Committee about precedents and whether there were any on the statute book. We have found no examples of compensation being paid for loss of business resulting from legislation. Examples of legislation leading to loss of business, for which no compensation was paid, include the Marine, & c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. That outlawed off-shore private radio. There was also the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which prohibited self-loading rifles, pump action shotguns and a number of other items of weaponry. Compensation was paid to owners of prohibited guns, but not to businesses.
  Cattle head de-boners and the specified bovine material order of 29th March 1996, which is fairly recent, prevented meat from the heads of slaughtered cattle being sold for public consumption. That has done considerable damage to the industry, as we all know, which processed cattle heads. No compensation was made in that case and neither was there any time to adjust to that change. I make that point to my noble friend Lord Peel.
  Other examples of Government action leading to loss of business without compensation included the banning of the use of hormones in red meat in 1988 under EC legislation and the banning of products such as drugs or pesticides on health and safety grounds.

  579
  I now move on to Amendment No. 39 in the names of my noble friends Lord Gisborough, Lord Swansea and Lord Shrewsbury, which deals with compensation for clubs and businesses. The Government will put in place arrangements which will allow clubs to continue to shoot small calibre .22 rimfire pistols under Home Office or Scottish Office licence. We hope that we shall have the co-operation of the shooting community in making that work.
  Unfortunately, it may be that some existing clubs will not be able to take advantage of these arrangements. If so, that is a matter of regret. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government compensation scheme, which we will lay before your Lordships' House. As I have already said, it will be a complete departure from precedent and one which we could not support, for the taxpayer to be asked to meet losses of this kind which were attributed to the prohibition of handguns.
  Perhaps I may say as an aside at this point to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I have not detected in anything which has been said here or in another place by the official Labour Party Front Bench that they would have been more generous or generous at all, beyond what has been agreed in terms of compensation in this Bill or in any other Bill. For the record, that is my retort to the point made by the noble Lord.
  I am aware of the great strength of feeling on the subject of compensation for business losses which will result from the implementation of the Bill. Firearms dealers who surrender prohibited handguns and specified ancillary equipment will be able to apply for compensation for them under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme on the same basis as private owners if they owned them, or were contracted to acquire them as at 16th October last. Amendment No. 40 would go further than this. It would have the Government pay compensation to dealers not simply for losses of property but also for business losses which were attributed to the prohibition on higher-calibre handguns. I regret to tell my noble friend that the Government cannot accede to that proposition. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business which may be lost by companies when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety. It is one of the overriding duties of the Government to protect the safety of the public. Thomas Hamilton's terrible crime made it inevitable that there would be further changes in the way in which guns were controlled in this country. Lord Cullen in his very thorough report made that abundantly clear.
  Lord Gisborough: I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. If these guns are to be withdrawn for reasons of public safety, surely it would be only fair to withdraw fire extinguishers and other objects like that.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: Everything is a matter of balance. Noble Lords will have different views about what constitutes public safety and when the Government
  580
  should intervene, but in responding to this particular incident there are many different views as to where the line should be drawn in terms of public safety. For what it is worth, the Government have drawn a line which is well known, and that is the subject of our debate today.
  Strong recommendations were made about the control of hand-guns. But Lord Cullen said—and the Government entirely respect his stance—that the question of whether handguns would be available was one for Parliament and not for a judge to decide. The Government have taken a view on this fundamental question and they have been supported in another place. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if on those occasions when the Government were obliged to legislate in the interests of public safety they were obliged to pay for business losses which were thought likely to result from it. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear in another place, there have been many occasions when public safety legislation has been introduced which affects businesses—for example, in the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals or pollution, and compensation for business loss has not been paid. If the practice of many, many years was to be changed, such an onerous requirement on the Government of the day would seriously inhibit the passing of safety legislation.
  We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for lost stock. But, in declining to compensate also for business loss, the Government are following the precedent of many years. Much as we regret the difficulties which many firearms dealers may face—I do not take issue with my noble friends on the examples that have been given—I believe that this is the right course for the Government to take, and I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
  Finally, I turn to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I do not believe that the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 add to the present arrangements under which we propose to compensate the owners of small calibre pistols who choose to surrender them to the police rather than join a licensed pistol club. We fully intend that these people shall receive fair payment for their guns based on market value as at 16th October last, the date of the Government's Statement to the House on Lord Cullen's Report. We do not know how many of the small calibre pistol owners will choose to surrender their guns. We intend that the payments they receive should be ex gratia rather than being made under the terms of the statutory compensation scheme envisaged by Clause 11 of the Bill. But I can assure the House that they will be treated as favourably as people who surrender their prohibited higher calibre guns.
  Perhaps I may deal with one or two particular points that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to a matter that was not included in his correspondence. I take this opportunity to thank him very much for the way in which he has shared some of his concerns because it facilitates debate on these matters. I refer to the issue in Lithgow v. United Kingdom which was dealt with before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government consider that their proposals meet the requirements of the European

  581
  convention in relation to the expropriation of property. The court held that a "fair balance" had to be struck when property was expropriated. The Government propose to pay compensation at market value. We believe that that meets the requirement for a fair balance. As I understand it, this case was not about business losses.
  My noble friend Lord Kimball posed a question about guns for gun clubs being held on secure dealers' premises. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that that is the subject of Amendment No. 42. For that reason, I believe that it is wrong to deal with it while discussing this group of amendments.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the distinction between owners and dealers. The use of the word "dealer" carries no implication that business losses would be paid. The Firearms Act distinguishes between firearm certificate holders and dealers in many aspects of the law. I believe that it would mislead the Committee if I said that compensation would be paid only to gun owners.
  I urge the Committee to accept the two government amendments, although I appreciate that not all noble Lords agree with them. But it must be for other noble Lords to consider whether any of the amendments in this group are pressed.
  Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, can she give the Committee a broad idea of the total amount of compensation that is likely to be payable under the Government's proposals and how much more compensation would have to be paid under the proposals put forward by my noble friends?
  Baroness Blatch: The ballpark figure that the Government have in mind at the moment is £150 million. As to the latter sum, I cannot hazard a guess other than that it will be very considerable. No quantification has been made of the degree to which businesses will lose out as a result of these changes. Implicit in this amendment are people who have put up their houses as collateral, taken out loans or leases and will suffer loss of rent. It is almost impossible to quantify other than to say that it will be a very considerable sum.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In her speech the Minister referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Both she and my noble friend are aware that there is a free vote on all of these issues. But I do not believe that I should let the moment pass without making it clear that at least as far as I am concerned my noble friend Lord Stoddart speaks for himself and not necessarily for others in his and my party. My advice to my noble friends, based on my personal assessment of the issues, is that when the government amendments are moved they should support them, and if there are any amendments that seek to extend compensation they should oppose them and join the Government in doing so.
  Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her absolute assurance that
  582
  compensation to the owners of .22 pistols who will have to surrender them will be at market value, even though for whatever reason the Government appear determined that this should remain on an ex gratia basis. As I understand it, however, no compensation will be payable for the accessories for these .22 pistols on the ground that there will still be a market for them. Does the noble Baroness agree that if most .22 pistol clubs must close because they cannot afford the extremely expensive security precautions that they will be obliged to incur, the value of these accessories will plummet?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I begin by declaring an indirect professional interest. I was counsel in the European case which was referred to by the Minister. In that case my clients were in the business of cattle head de-boning; that is, the removal and processing of meat from the heads of cattle. That is a case pending before the European Commission of Human Rights. As a result of the Government's measures to prevent the spread of BSE, my clients complained that they had been deprived of their right to property and livelihood by the destruction of their business in breach of Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention.
  I was also the unsuccessful counsel in the Lithgow case who sought to challenge Labour's nationalisation proposals as not amounting to fair compensation. One found oneself against a Conservative Government which had promised to compensate when in opposition but which when in government—as one comes to expect of all parties when the executive gains power—behaved exactly as the Government before them. As a result, they succeeded in diluting the necessary English principles of compensation so that many Members of the Committee, especially on the Benches opposite, will find themselves in great difficulty today since, as I have explained, their only hope, I suspect, will be that European law will come to the rescue of difficulties about the British constitution.
  I shall speak directly to the problems, based on my experience and expressing my view. On Second Reading, the Minister explained, as she has today, that the Government are unwilling to pay compensation for anything except guns and accessories, as distinct from the business losses sustained by those who suffer directly from the government legislation. What has been said, and said repeatedly, is, first, that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of direct government legislation. I shall try to persuade the Committee that that is a mistaken view.
  What is said is that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people or businesses of property or the use of their property, it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners, and only those property owners, for the value of their property. It is said that that obligation arises under the European Convention on Human Rights, but somehow it is different from paying compensation for business losses. I am merely summarising the Minister's speech on Second Reading.

  583
  On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank raised what he described as the awkward question of compensation for loss of business, expressing his belief that public expenditure considerations should not be allowed to override what is fair and just to those who will inevitably be the victims of the legislation. My noble friend doubts whether we have yet got the extent and incidence of compensation right. I share his doubts, and I should like briefly to explain why.
  First, there is the question of principle. Where the direct and inevitable effect of legislation is to deprive someone of the right to engage in what has previously been his lawful business and carry on what has previously been his lawful livelihood, the question is whether it is right in principle that the victim should be denied any compensation by the state, or should he be compensated, if not at full market value—I think not at full market value—then at any rate fairly, so that that individual does not have to bear an excessive individual burden. That is the question.
  We pride ourselves in this country on the fact that ever since Magna Carta both common law and statute law give effective protection to the enjoyment of one's property, including the right to be fairly compensated for loss of livelihood or business where it is destroyed by coercive, legislative, or administrative measures. That basic principle is well preserved; for example, by our planning legislation in relation to the effect of planning blight on the enjoyment of one's property. It has always been well preserved by nationalisation legislation, where businesses are blighted or destroyed and compensation is payable.
  I am dealing with principle, but as a matter of principle I can see no rational basis whatever for distinguishing between compensation for the deprivation of the right to own a firearm and compensation for the deprivation of the right to carry on business in selling firearms. For the dealer, the business is a much more valuable property right than is his current stock. In principle, the loss of business by dealers resulting directly from the banning of handguns should be compensated.
  Secondly, there is the question of European law. I find it ironical and enjoyable that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will have to rely upon European law to deal with this problem.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the noble Lord give way? That of course depends upon what this place decides.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Of course, that is true. In this area, unlike European Community law, we have complete sovereign powers. If we do not use the powers in the way that the noble Lord wishes, then the only recourse will be to alien European judges in Strasbourg. It is well established in the case law of the European convention, contrary to the advice given to the Minister, as I understand the position, that the concept of possessions protected by Article 1 of the first protocol includes the economic interest concerned
  584
  with the running of a licensed business, and that the withdrawal, for example, of a licence constitutes a measure of control of the use of property which is protected by Article 1 of the protocol.
  One of the cases that lays that down is Tre Traktörer, the Swedish case decided in 1989. It is also clear that the deprivation of income from the use of an owner's property comes within Article 1 of the protocol. The European convention gives states a wide margin of appreciation in these matters, and the Committee is enjoying it today. We can decide, in a very wide margin of appreciation, what is a fair balance, but, in the end, under the convention—thank heavens!—in the absence of a written constitution or a Bill of Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has to determine, in its words:
  "whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental freedoms".
  The court has held repeatedly—again I quote from Lithgow:
  "Compensation terms are material to the assessment whether the contested legislation represents a fair balance between the various interests at stake, and notably whether it does not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants",
  in this case, on people whose businesses are destroyed by the Bill.
  In my view, the absence from the Bill of the provision for compensation of any kind for disruption of business and livelihood is, to say the least, likely to raise powerful arguments of breaches of Article 1 of the convention's first protocol. That is the second point—if we do not do something about this then I suspect that the matter will have to go to the European court, which will be deeply regrettable. Although I make my living to some extent from cases in Europe, I am not satisfied by the fact that there are not effective remedies in Parliament and our own courts.
  The third point is the question of precedent. The Government's position is that there are no precedents in favour of compensating in this kind of case. It is not correct to assert that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses as a result of government legislation. I would add to the examples given by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for example, that nationalisation legislation has always provided for compensation for business losses resulting directly from the legislation. That occurred most recently in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, where the businesses concerned were valued at vesting date as a means of calculating losses and assessing compensation. Another more recent example—I do not suggest that Parliament always does its job properly—arose in relation to the BSE affair where, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—payments amounting to £30 million are to be made to slaughterhouses which continue to slaughter beef. Those payments are based on the throughput for 1995 to 1996; that is, as a calculation to enable fair compensation to be paid for the loss of the business caused by the effects of the ban.

  585
  Another precedent, which one cannot disregard and which is directly relevant, is the firearms legislation in Australia. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the Australian Government's guidelines provide that firearms dealers and importers are entitled to apply for compensation for any loss in the value of their businesses caused by these prohibitions. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, quoted all the principles and therefore I do not need to repeat them.
  All the laws enacted in the states of Australia during the past six months provide for loss of business of dealers who sell, repair or import the prohibited firearms. The loss is valued as the difference between the value of the business prior to the new legislation and after the legislation, as assessed by a certified valuer and subject to independent audit.
  I believe that the Bill should provide some compensation for loss of business. Parliament is making people in the business of selling and distributing guns forgo their livelihood for the safety and well being of society as a whole. We cannot in fairness expect them to bear an unreasonable and excessive individual burden for the losses suffered by them in what we as legislators perceive as the general interest of the community.
  However, lest I am thought to be a fanatic in defence of the right to property, perhaps I may say that, although I support the principle on which Amendment No. 40 is based, it is, in my view, too generous in requiring full compensation at market value. That is not the standard of compensation required under the convention in such a case. What is required is fair but not full compensation.
  Moreover, as the business has declined since the Dunblane massacre, it would be inequitable for any compensation scheme to fail to take account of that decline in business. There I join forces with the noble Baroness the Minister in the way in which she approaches the relevant date. Amendment No. 40 treats 1st January 1996 as the relevant valuation date. That seems to be much too generous to dealers and unfair to the general body of taxpayers. It is more generous than the Australian compensation scheme and I see no good reason for that.
  Perhaps I may sum up. I very much hope that the Government will accept the principle of fair but not full compensation and bring a scheme back to the House which meets the justice of the situation.
  5 p.m.
  The Earl of Lytton: It has been a very interesting debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have never received so many letters on any other subject. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said, although I remain at least 80 per cent. unconvinced by it and I am sorry to record that.
  I have great concerns as to how, in another place, a money resolution is put forward in terms which cover two heads of payment but the Government seek to limit public expenditure exposure to the first one only. That matter needs clarification.
  586
  We are dealing with an issue which has an effect of substantial finality to people who have no other option. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred to the fact and degree of the Government's liability to meet cost and to the absence of time to adjust. He said, "No product, no customer, no fault of their own". I agree with all those points. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to justice and fairness and I support those sentiments too. The price of haste and lack of due consideration is full compensation, as I said. As I keep telling my clients in my professional capacity, "It is either your time or your money and you hope that it is not too much of both".
  I was particularly pleased to note the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because he dealt with the legal aspects upon which I am entirely unqualified to comment. I was not sure that I understood the difference between fair but not full compensation. I question whether in this Bill we have the right balance, given that at the date when the Minister suggests the Government should fix values for compensation purposes there was no market. How can one have a compensation scheme based on full or fair values if there is no market? However, I was heartened by the account of the discussions that are taking place in order to try to overcome that and I can hope only that they produce a satisfactory decision.
  Obviously, it is up to Parliament to decide compensation, not government. The ban is not peripheral; it is fundamental. It is not tinkering at the edges of an industry; it is going to the core of it. That is the difference. I noted what was said by the noble Baroness in connection with the Labour Party and I noted what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had to say. It is clear that public-sector costs are weighing more heavily in the balance in the Government's position than matters of fairness and justice. I find that deeply regrettable.
  I do not intend to press my amendments. I cannot speak for other noble Lords, but if the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, seeks to move his amendment I should be inclined to walk into the Lobby with him. Mine are simply probing amendments, but I must make it clear that I do not intend to let go on this issue. I do not believe that we have the balance right and almost certainly I shall return to the matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
  Divide Clause 11 into two clauses, the first (Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition) to consist of subsections (1) to (3) and the second (Payments in respect of ancillary equipment) to consist of subsections (4) to (9).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
  PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF COMPENSATION SCHEMES
  (" .—(1) Before making a compensation scheme the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall not make the scheme unless the draft has been approved by resolution of each House.
  (3) This section applies to any alteration to the scheme as it applies to a compensation scheme.
  (4) In this section "compensation scheme" means a scheme under section (Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition) or (Payments in respect of ancillary equipment) above.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 39:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
  COMPENSATION FOR CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate.
  (2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide payments in respect of loss incurred by persons who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.").
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
  5.8 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 135.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Cross, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Blease, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Brain, L.

  Denham, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Derwent, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Burton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Calverley, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Erne, E.

  Carnock, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Chalfont, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Gage, V.

  Clancarty, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Geraint, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Grey, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  588

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Peel, E.

  Hemphill, L.

  Plummer of St, Marylebone, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Quinton, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Raglan, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Reay, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Richardson, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Russell, E.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Kimball, L. [Teller.]

  St. Davids, V.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Kintore, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Savile, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Shannon, E.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Simon, V.

  Liverpool, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Long, V.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Stewartby, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Manton, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Taverne, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Teviot, L.

  Meston, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Methuen, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Monson, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Tope, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Moran, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Newall, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Abinger, L.

  Byford, B.

  Acton, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Addison, V.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Ailsa, M.

  Carter, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Courtown, E.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Cox, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Beloff, L.

  Cuckney, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  David, B.

  Birdwood, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Dubs, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.17 p.m.
  Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 40:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
  PAYMENTS FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS
  ("—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who suffer any loss in the value of a business owned or operated by them on 16th October 1996 which is directly attributable to the prohibition introduced by section 1 above.
  (2) Any scheme made by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1) shall provide for payments to be made on the basis of the difference in value of the business on 1st January 1996 and on the date of the passing of this Act calculated on the prescribed standard by a qualified person.
  (3) For the purposes of this section—
  "prescribed standard" means calculation of the capitalisation of the estimated future profits which will be foregone by a business as a consequence of the prohibition introduced by section 1 based upon an economic loss analysis of the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years before the passing of this Act; and
  590
  "qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.").
  The noble Lord said: I should like to move this amendment. It can be tidied up at a later stage with regard to whether it should be full compensation or fair compensation. I commend the amendment to the House.
  5.18 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 147.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Cross, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Blease, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Brain, L.

  Denham, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Derwent, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Burton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Calverley, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Erne, E.

  Carnock, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Chalfont, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Gage, V.

  Clancarty, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Geraint, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Grey, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  588

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Peel, E.

  Hemphill, L.

  Plummer of St, Marylebone, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Quinton, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Raglan, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Reay, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Richardson, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Russell, E.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Kimball, L. [Teller.]

  St. Davids, V.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Kintore, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Savile, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Shannon, E.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Simon, V.

  Liverpool, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Long, V.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Stewartby, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Manton, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Taverne, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Teviot, L.

  Meston, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Methuen, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Monson, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Tope, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Moran, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Newall, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Abinger, L.

  Byford, B.

  Acton, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Addison, V.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Ailsa, M.

  Carter, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Courtown, E.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Cox, B.

  Barnett, L.

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Beloff, L.

  Cuckney, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  David, B.

  Birdwood, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Dubs, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

  Eatwell, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Elles, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Elton, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Merrivale, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Mishcon, L.

  Flather, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Nathan, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Nickson, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Paul, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Peston, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Pike, B.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Henley, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Renton, L.

  Hood, V.

  Richard, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Howe, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L

  Judd, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Trumpington, B.

  Lucas, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Luke, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Lyell, L.

  White, B.

  McCarthy, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

  Winston, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Inchcape, E.

  Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Blease, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Brain, L.

  McNair, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Brookes, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Manton, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Burton, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Monson, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Clancarty, E.

  Moran, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Mottistone, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Congleton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Newall, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

  Cross, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Peel, E. [Teller.]

  De Saumarez, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Quinton, L.

  Denham, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Reay, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Rennell, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Richardson, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  St. Davids, V.

  Erroll, E.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Savile, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Gisborough, L. [Teller.]

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Simon, V.

  Haddington, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Strafford, E.

  Holderness, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  591

  Thurso, V.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Wharton, B.

  Yarborough, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Acton, L.

  Hay man, B.

  Addison, V.

  Hemphill, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Henley, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Howe, E.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Beloff, L.

  Judd, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Long, V.

  Bolton, L.

  Longford, E.

  Bowness, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Lucas, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Luke, L.

  Byford, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Carter, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Marlesford, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Coleridge, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Mishcon, L.

  Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Montrose, D.

  Cuckney, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  David, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Nathan, L.

  Demon of Wakefield, B.

  Nickson, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Eatwell, L.

  Peston, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Elton, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Erne, E.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Renton, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Richard, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Flather, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  592

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  White, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Tollemache, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Winston, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Wise, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.27 p.m.
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 41:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
  EXEMPTION FROM SURRENDER OK FIREARM WHERE EXPORT LICENCE APPLICATION MADE
  ("—(1) A holder of a firearm certificate authorising possession of a firearm which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1 above shall not be required to surrender that firearm in accordance with section 10 above if that person has made application to the Department of Trade and Industry in the prescribed form for an export licence for that firearm not later than fourteen days before the date announced by the Secretary of State as the final date for the surrender of that category of firearm.
  (2) The holder of the firearm certificate shall be required to surrender the firearm to the police—

  (a) if the export licence is not granted, not more than seven days after receiving such notification from the Department of Trade and Industry; or

  (b) if the export licence is granted, not more than fifty-six days after receiving such notification if the firearm has not been exported by that time.

  (3) A person who surrenders a firearm to a chief officer of police under subsection (2) above shall be entitled to the same payment under section 11 above as if he had surrendered the firearm in accordance with the arrangements made by the Secretary of State under section 10 above.").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the proposed new clause is to enable those who have guns, which will become unlawful if the Bill is passed, to make arrangements to sell them abroad without being unduly hindered by the tight time-scale of surrender which is currently envisaged. Subsection (1) of the clause requires the owner to apply for an export licence at least 14 days before the final date for surrender of the gun under normal arrangements. So he has to find by that time a person, club or dealer to whom he can export the gun. Once he had applied for an export licence the owner would not be required to surrender it within the short time-scale, given that export licences may take some time to be granted.
  Subsection (2) sets the time limit for disposal of the gun after the owner is advised of the outcome of the export licence application. If it is turned down, he has seven days to surrender it to the police. On the other hand, if it is granted he has eight weeks to make the necessary arrangements to get the gun out of the country. If it is not exported within the time limit, it has to be surrendered to the police.
  Subsection (3) makes it clear that if the gun has to be surrendered to the police because an export licence is not granted, or because the owner cannot get it exported within the time limit, the owner is entitled to the same compensation as is due to everyone else. The amendment enables gun owners to pass their possessions on at a fair price to other persons who can

  593
  legally hold them in their own countries. It could also enable some historic guns, which are not regarded as very important in Britain, to be returned to countries where they are of significance.
  From the Government's viewpoint, any gun sold overseas reduces their liability—or, strictly speaking, that of the taxpayer—for compensation. It also reduces the workload on the police in administering the surrender arrangements. Incidentally, the Australian scheme does allow gun owners to export if they so wish. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I moved amendments at an earlier stage of the Committee with the directly opposite intention to the amendment now proposed. I was concerned that there should not be an increase in the international arms trade as a result of the legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be concerned to ensure that there will be an increase in that trade. I think that is deplorable. Of course it is true that licences are required for the export of arms of this kind. It is quite right that they should be because these arms can be used not only in domestic civil homicide—if that is the right way to describe it—but also in disturbed or disordered countries as weapons of war or of civil war. We should discourage this kind of increase in the international arms trade which would be encouraged by the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that the Government and the Committee will resist it.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Burton: I understand that people who have already applied for export licences are not receiving them at the moment because the authorities have stopped processing them. That must be wrong. The law is not being complied with as they have every right to obtain a licence at the present time. The issuing of those licences should not be deferred.
  The Earl of Lytton: I have some slight misgivings about what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. It seems to me that handguns are relatively easy to obtain in Europe, of which we are part. Among other things, Europe provides for the free movement of goods, services and people within its overall borders. We cannot disinvent what already exists in terms of things which we in this country might decide are unsatisfactory but which are commonplace, in common use and are commonly accepted in other countries. While I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might wish this country to make a gesture in the direction of the arms trade—I abhor that trade—there are much larger issues to consider such as matters we have heard about recently; namely, landmines and other things of that sort. Those issues need to be tackled, not the private ownership of handguns which have no large-scale application for the purposes of anti-personnel activities. In general, I support this amendment. So long as we
  594
  have free trade and so long as these items are legally owned in other countries, I do not see how we can possibly stand in the way of that.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord's amendment would open the possibility of a large number of higher calibre handguns remaining in circulation for some time after the prohibition came into effect. I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to meet the concern which he has raised.
  The Government recognise that some of those who currently possess higher calibre handguns may want to sell them to someone in another country where such handguns will remain lawful, rather than surrender their weapons to the police and receive compensation under the scheme which will be made under Clause 11. For that reason it is not necessary for the Government to become involved in the matter which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have just discussed. As I say, it is recognised that some owners will wish to export their guns to countries where the guns will remain lawful. However, those who wish to do so will need to obtain an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. Obtaining such a licence takes a little time because the application must be checked for accuracy and omissions, and checks may be made if necessary to determine that the intended recipient of the firearm in another country has whatever authorities are required in that country to receive and possess the firearms.
  Checks may also be made to make sure that there is no other reason why it would not be in the public interest for the firearm to be exported to the intended destination. I understand that in normal circumstances the Department of Trade and Industry processes such applications within 20 working days of receipt of a completed application. My noble friend Lord Burton suggests that there may be a problem at the moment. I undertake to check that matter with the department. The Government have not yet determined the precise arrangements for the surrender of higher calibre handguns to the police, including how long the surrender period should last. We are currently discussing with the police what period will be necessary, but it is likely that we will allow a period of two or perhaps three months. Such a period would in normal circumstances allow plenty of time for anyone who wished to export his firearm. I recognise, however, that there may be a significant increase in firearms export applications during the relevant period. We are therefore considering with the Department of Trade and Industry what arrangements might be made if there were to be a substantial increase. We will want to make sure that there are no unnecessary delays in the processing of applications.
  We will also want to avoid the situation where a valid application for an export licence is still under consideration when the prohibition comes into effect. I agree with the noble Lord that people should not inadvertently be denied the opportunity lawfully to export their firearms. I do not believe, however, that the amendment is the right answer to that potential problem. It would have the effect that those who had made

  595
  applications for export licences did not have to surrender their firearms. They would remain in possession of their higher calibre handguns after the prohibition came into effect, provided they had lodged an application. This inevitably leaves open the possibility that some people may seek deliberately to thwart the effect of the prohibition.
  If large numbers of applications were made shortly before the prohibition came into effect, the department might take some time to process them. That is a problem which must be faced. That might mean that significant numbers of higher calibre handguns would remain in circulation for a substantial period beyond that which was intended by the prohibition. The Government believe that would create an unacceptable loophole in the introduction of the prohibition.
  It is important that all those firearms which will be prohibited are out of circulation as soon as possible. We are considering whether the arrangements for the surrender and compensation scheme under Clauses 10 and 11 should allow for the possibility that those who wish to export their firearms should be allowed to surrender their weapons to the police during the normal surrender period until such time as the application is determined. If the application is granted, they would then be permitted to export the handgun. If, on the other hand, the application is refused, the owner would be able to receive compensation under the scheme as if he had surrendered it in the normal way like many others.
  We are not at present convinced that such arrangements will be necessary but we are considering whether there may be a case for them. I am happy to give an undertaking to the Committee to consider the issue in detail with the Department of Trade and Industry, and if we conclude that it is necessary to make provision for the surrender and compensation arrangements under Clauses 10 and 11 along the lines I have outlined, that will be done. I hope that will meet the noble Lord's concern without leaving open the possibility of these guns remaining in circulation longer than the prohibition would normally allow. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Monson: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lytton for his support. He put the case well. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chilled our blood with talk of the international arms trade as if we were talking about Exocet missiles, or even Kalashnikovs such as are used in civil wars. We are not talking about those things; we are talking about ordinary revolvers and pistols, .32, .38, .45, such as were freely obtainable by anyone in this country up until 1920, and with almost no difficulty until 1946. Most countries do not have the hang-ups—as I think I said on an earlier occasion—about pistols that we have in this country at the moment. If people in those countries want to buy the guns and their governments are happy that they should acquire them, why should they not do so?
  I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. He has been helpful. The Government are thinking carefully about the matter and about possible problems that may arise. I shall read the Minister's comments
  596
  thoroughly. I may have to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill but I hope that will not be necessary. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 [Purpose of Part 77]:
  Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("and such premises may include the premises of a registered firearms dealer for the purpose of such storage").
  The noble Earl said: This is principally a probing amendment to attempt to clarify the situation regarding the use of dealers' premises to store pistols. When a similar amendment was debated in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated that the amendment was unnecessary since the definition in Clause 12 of "licensed premises" does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre pistols may be stored. He went on to say that the key requirement would be that it met the levels of security necessary to ensure that guns could not be stolen or removed illicitly from the premises. The majority of dealers would have such levels of security to satisfy the local chief of police.
  During her winding up speech at Second Reading, the Minister qualified the statement by saying that guns could only be stored at dealers' premises,
  "where a dealer runs a shooting range".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1381.]
  My noble friend continued:
  "If the gun would have to leave the dealers' premises in order to reach the gun club, that would not be acceptable".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1382.]
  While the Home Secretary's initial statement would allow pistol clubs to use dealers' premises to store their pistols, my noble friend's reply would effectively prevent the majority of gun dealers from doing so as most do not have ranges on their premises. I hope that the amendment offers my noble friend an opportunity to clarify this important point. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment. At Second Reading I addressed the issue of small gun clubs which have difficulty in finding premises. That is the reason they are threatened with closure. Therefore, if gun shop premises could be used for storage it would be most helpful. Other premises might be able to be used. I am not sure whether that is precluded by the Bill.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendment No. 42 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. For the convenience of the Committee it may be sensible for me to limit my remarks at present to Amendment No. 42 as no noble Lord has spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 or 46.
  Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel deals with the definition of "licensed premises" in Clause 12. That definition does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre

  597
  pistols may be stored. As my noble friend Lady Blatch sought to make clear previously, that depends on the precise circumstances of the registered dealer's premises and the club premises.
  It is impossible to say in advance whether a specific set of premises will qualify as a club, and for guns to be stored there. That requires to be determined once the facts are known. It all depends on the individual circumstances. On the basis that as presently drafted Clause 12 does not preclude it, the Government remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and may be counterproductive. On that basis, which I hope I have made clear, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Peel: I thank my noble friend for that reply. One or two items are still a little unclear from his answer. However, I wish to consider the matter, and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to. Clause 13 agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 43:
  After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
  No PISTOL CLUB TO USE TARGETS WITH HUMAN RESEMBLANCE
  ("No club shall allow the use on any of its club premises of targets made to bear any resemblance to a human form.").
  The noble Earl said: Before moving the amendment, perhaps I may say this. I believe that there is a substantial popular moral movement in this country which wishes to see the end of handguns in their entirety. However, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 is to ensure that the residual pistol shooting sport allowed in the Bill never approaches the accusation of "practising killing people". I recognise that that may be somewhat over the top and unfair. However, at Second Reading I said that I believed that handguns had only a lethal or quasi-lethal use. The adoption of the two amendments would provide an antidote to my argument about there being only a lethal or quasi-lethal use of handguns. It would confirm that bull's-eye style target shooting is a sport in itself and hence is not practising to kill people.
  It is wholly appropriate that the Armed Forces and the police should train themselves to reduce the enemy to incapability of response. The activity of military shooting must be seen as a wholly separate activity. The Armed Forces and police must practise the accurate use of their weapons under as realistic conditions as possible; and they must build up skills in weapon handling, change of firing position and tactical movements.
  It is not the role in any way of the private civilian handgun owner or user to train himself in that respect. If private handgun owners and their sport are to be tolerated in our society, they must be able to
  598
  demonstrate that there is no confusion whatsoever in their minds that they have a military or anti-human purpose in their hobby or sport. In short, they must not look like soldiers or give the impression of practising to shoot humans. I believe that the amendments send out a strong message to all pistol shooting enthusiasts about the suspect nature of their activity and the moral constraints that are placed upon them. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that I have previously declared an interest in this matter.
  The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raises an extremely important point. I, too, have some difficulty with what is called combat shooting but I do not know much about it. Great emphasis has been laid on the problem by the Minister and her right honourable friend. Why has it suddenly appeared as a problem? What studies have been undertaken? The Minister has yet to reply to the questions that I posed at Second Reading. I understand that the Firearms Consultative Committee has studied the matter in passing but has not published any findings.
  Having said that, I have grave misgivings about competitions where among the skills being tested are the ability to reload, change or select fire positions, or to make ready and fire quickly. I repeat that I do not know the answer; it is a matter that the FCC needs to look into.
  There is also the slightly different problem addressed at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. We currently provide effective personal protection services but only overseas, not within the United Kingdom. I believe that the training used to take place at a "club". Perhaps reputable organisations in this field will be able to obtain a Section 5 authorisation in due course.
  The noble Earl's second amendment addresses the same problem and is useful as an illustration of the matters to be debated. However, it is flawed because of the difficulties of definition. Some styles of military clothing are fashionable. The provision is unnecessary and denies shooters a suitable supply of good quality clothing. Apart from that, the proposal is quite good. There is one more problem. I should not be able to attend a shooting meeting wearing my TA uniform, even on MoD land.
  I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling these amendments. I look forward to the comments of other noble Lords and to the Minister's reply.
  The Earl of Balfour: In our consideration of the legislation in principle I feel that most of us who were taught to shoot, in order to kill vermin, pheasants and so on, were so very strictly trained that we never, ever pointed a gun at anybody, even if it was unloaded. Today, that same training is not being given to people. I raised this matter at Second Reading. I am not sure that the drafting of these amendments is in any way acceptable to the Government. However, there needs to be a clear distinction. On the whole, I should be much happier if the position taken by the noble Earl, Lord Mar

  599
  and Kellie, could be made clear on the face of the Bill. It would give tremendous encouragement to sportsmen in this country.
  Lord Swansea: As Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are grouped with this amendment, I intend to speak to Amendment No. 45.
  Baroness Blatch: If my noble friend will forgive my interrupting him, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 form a pair of amendments that will be discussed when debate on this amendment is completed.
  Lord Monson: I have mixed feelings about Amendment No. 43, but Amendment No. 44 goes way over the top and should be resisted, partly for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Attlee, partly because of problems of definition and partly because a matter of so trivial a nature is unsuited to statute law. I do not know whether they still exist in the south of England, but certainly in the north institutions called army surplus shops still exist in great numbers. The clothes sold there are cheap and hard-wearing; they do not show the dirt easily and are comfortable. They are, for instance, worn frequently by beaters on shoots. Would such clothes be banned? Would forage caps, for instance, worn by some people for obvious reasons, be banned? I have a cotton safari jacket which I wear whenever I visit tropical countries. It is cut in a military style. Would that be banned? One has only to raise such questions to see how nonsensical Amendment No. 44 is.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I suggest that Amendment No. 44 is a somewhat illiberal proposal.
  Lord Marlesford: Amendment No. 44 is clearly a non-starter by any test. However, according to my paper, Amendment No. 43 relates only to pistol clubs. Does the noble Earl intend it to apply also to rifle clubs?
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may reply to those points. I take the point about the proposal sounding illiberal. I am happy to say that I should like to see the ban on shooting at human style targets cover all forms of firearm.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It is obvious from the contributions of all noble Lords who spoke on these two amendments that the issues that lie behind them give rise to a difference of view. That serves to illustrate my main point; namely, if there is a case for regulation of the targets used at pistol clubs and of the clothing used by those who attend such clubs, it is better that that is not done on the face of the Bill but that it is prescribed in regulations, as set out in Clause 22, upon which the Government will take the advice of the Firearms Consultative Committee before the regulations are laid.
  The Government firmly believe that such restrictions, if appropriate, should be dealt with by regulations, which may be amended if necessary in the light of experience. I hope that, given the assurance that the
  600
  Government will examine the issue further before finalising the necessary regulations, the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw both amendments.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he agree that Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are simply not workable in any event as they do not contain the necessary consequential sanction which is available under Clause 22 of the Bill?
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance. There are a number of sound technical and legal objections to the amendments. I happily adopt his support on this matter. The better way is to leave it to regulations if such restriction is appropriate.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am impressed by the co-operation between the Labour and Conservative Parties. Perhaps it will continue.
  I agree with Members of the Committee that Amendment No. 44 is capable of being described as trivial. However, Amendment No. 43 attracted some degree of sympathy. It is important to make it quite clear—this is a moral rather than a legislative issue—that there is a substantial difference between military and civil shooting. That was one of the reasons I was very keen to table the amendment.
  In response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I believe it is important that people are taught how to shoot. If animals are to be shot, people should have practice in shooting at animal targets. For example, there is a need in Scotland for a cull of 100, 000 red deer. Clearly there is a need for people who are not practised in shooting live red deer to shoot at red deer targets. I am in favour of the use of animal style targets, merely not human ones.
  I am heartened by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about such provisions appearing in regulations. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Criteria for grant of licence]:
  Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 8, line 40, at end insert ("and section 42 (3) of this Act shall not apply in respect of this Part of this Act until such guidance has been published").
  The noble Lord said: this is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification on the proposed security requirements for clubs.
  At the moment, members of gun clubs face uncertainty about the future of their clubs. Many will have considerable sums invested in premises which might be forced to close under the terms of the Bill. That uncertainty should be addressed by the Government so that gun club members can make decisions regarding their investments.
  The Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, published on 16th October 1996, contained an indication of the arrangements that clubs might be expected to implement as a result of the Bill. These included:
  "reinforced walls to ensure that thieves could not break into a club building; safes in which guns and ammunition would have to be stored; strong perimeter fences; burglar alarms linked directly to the police; access control, including metal detectors, to prevent guns being illicitly removed".
  The Government conceded that, "Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements". The Government said that, after consultation with the police, the arrangements would be published in guidance.
  This delay does not help those who currently have investments tied up in club premises. There is no apparent reason for withholding such information, which would go a long way to ease the anxieties of those whose assets are at risk and enable those clubs that can meet the strict security standards to make the necessary improvements quickly. I beg to move.
  Lord Burton: I support my noble friend in his amendment. It is very difficult for the clubs if they do not know what they will have to do. They do not know whether they will be able to stay open or whether they will have to close. They must be given the information as soon as the Government can provide it, which I hope will not be long delayed.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully accept that there must be a measure of uncertainty on the part of pistol clubs as to what the future holds for them. But the import of Amendment No. 45, which my noble friend Lord Swansea has spoken to, is that it would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State not to bring into force the provisions for licensing pistol clubs until the criteria for the grant of such a licence have been published.
  The Government fully accept that such criteria should be published and made familiar to the members and office bearers of gun clubs before they are put in the position of having to apply for licences. However, I do not believe that this kind of common sense administrative matter requires statutory regulation.
  I can assure your Lordships that the criteria and guidance for licensed pistol clubs are under active consideration by officials and Ministers. We hope that a first draft of the criteria for the clubs and the security standards required will soon be placed in the Library of the House. I hope that that undertaking serves to answer the probing amendment, as my noble friend Lord Swansea described it, and that the amendment will not be pressed.
  Lord Swansea: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. As I said before, this is simply a probing amendment. I hope that clubs will take account of what he said and wait for the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").
  The noble Lord said: Clubs depend on a regular intake of new members. Those new members may or may not have previous experience of shooting; they would like to have a go. The Bill proposes that all members of a club should be in possession of a firearm certificate. One cannot expect a prospective member to have a firearm certificate. He probably will not have any firearms himself, and he may or may not wish to carry on shooting after he has had a go. The amendment allows for that situation. I believe I am right in saying that the 1968 Firearms Act caters for the contingency by allowing newcomers to go to a club and have a go on the range under close supervision following which they may or may not stay with the game. I beg to move.
  Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment. Pistol shooting is, after all, an Olympic sport. At the moment there are members who can compete. Unless something like the provision contained in this amendment is included in the Bill, there can be no question but that in a few years' time some old people will be shooting but not a single young person. The sport will disappear. It is essential that this amendment or something like it should be accepted in order to allow new entrants to the sport. I am certain that if somebody aged 18 goes to a club and wants to start shooting he will not obtain a firearm certificate just because he thinks he would like to start pistol shooting.
  Earl Attlee: The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. For many shooters there is no need to own their own handgun or rifle; they can use a club weapon. If we encouraged ownership of club weapons and discouraged personal ownership, that would go a long way to reducing the ownership of rifles and handguns. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Monson: I am in some difficulty here. The Committee will notice that Amendment No. 46 is identical to Amendment No. 47 in my name except that Amendment No. 46 appears in Clause 15 while mine appears in Clause 20, which I am advised by experts is the clause where it should appear. I had understood that on those grounds the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, was not going to move Amendment No. 46. As he has moved it, it seems only sensible that I should speak to the identical Amendment No. 47 and spare the Government having to reply twice.
  This matter is very important in respect of new or probationary club members. At the present time any member of a club may use a pistol. However, if special permits are required, new members will not be able to fire a pistol on even one single occasion without a licence. In addition, it is unclear whether existing members who have licences will be able to use another member's gun when theirs is out of commission or to try other pistols.

  603
  The need for either Amendment No. 46 or Amendment No. 47 is increased because of the arrangements proposed in Clause 8 which make transport so difficult. Visiting shooters may prefer to borrow a pistol when they arrive for a competition rather than have to obtain a special police permit.
  The amendment follows the precedent of the current law which has been in operation for rifle clubs since 1920 and which was continued in the 1968 Act. It will enable a newcomer to be introduced to a .22 pistol before he or she obtains a firearm certificate. After all, people want first to try out a pistol and see whether they enjoy shooting and are any good at it. It is quite different from rifle shooting. They may decide, after trying it only once or twice, that they do not want to do it and give up the whole idea.
  As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, it is much better from a public safety point of view for there to be club pistols for people to use rather than a greater number of individually owned ones. I would have thought that the Government very much agreed with that point.
  In Standing Committee in another place on 20th November last, the Minister, Miss Ann Widdecombe, tried to justify the Government's position "on grounds of public safety". How on earth can public safety be jeopardised by someone trying out a .22 pistol under the close, expert supervision of an experienced club official when someone of any age can fire a .22 rifle at a ping-pong ball bouncing on a jet of water at a fun fair? I rest my case.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendment No. 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea and Amendment No. 47, which I am happy to speak to as well, at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, both permit members of licensed pistol clubs approved by the Secretary of State who are not firearm certificate holders to possess and use any firearm or ammunition at such a club. They allow a person to join a club and shoot with pistols indefinitely without ever being vetted by the police as to their suitability. The Government believe that that is not acceptable. The Government have made it clear that no one should be permitted to possess or fire a pistol without holding an individual firearm certificate in their own right. That means that everyone will have been checked thoroughly by the police before being allowed to come into possession of a pistol. The Government accept that to some extent that may discourage people from taking up pistol shooting. However, we do not believe that this is an area where public safety should be compromised. We believe that we have a considerable measure of support in that position.
  Those who wish to take up pistol shooting—a number of noble Lords have suggested that the demand exists—will be able, before committing themselves to the process of obtaining a firearm certificate, to gain some experience of shooting with low-powered air pistols. We believe that that is a possible way of bringing younger
  604
  people into the sport, if that is what they wish to do. On that basis, I invite the Committee to reject both amendments if they are pressed to a vote.
  Earl Attlee: The Minister suggests that a prospective shooter should acquire a firearm certificate. Once he acquires a firearm certificate, will he not then be encouraged to go the next step and buy his own pistol? On the other hand, if he did not need a certificate at all but could only use a pistol in the gun club, he would not be encouraged to go and buy another weapon, and that would keep the number of weapons in circulation down.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not accept that the acquisition of a firearm certificate necessarily encourages a person to purchase a pistol for his ownership and use. That is a personal matter for the individual concerned. For the reasons I have given, the Government believe that it is important to have the highest standard of safety and control over those who fire pistols. We believe that the only way in which that can be achieved is by ensuring that anyone who seeks to use a pistol has a firearm certificate. The inevitable consequence of either of the amendments is to frustrate that intention.
  Lord Gisborough: I am somewhat appalled by that answer. First, because the Minister mentioned air guns and secondly, because he mentioned the firearm certificate.
  All sports have to be taken up at an early age. One cannot take up any sport at 30 or so and expect to be good at it. All sports should be taken up when people are young and able to learn. So people go into this sport at the age of 18 or so. But how can one possibly expect an 18 year-old to buy a licence for £150? I may be wrong but that is how I understand Clause 14. That is out of all proportion to what a young person would be earning.
  The Minister said that people could play around with air rifles. If he were to read my local press he would find out exactly what they do with air rifles. They wait until Dolly is leaning over and when she is facing south, they shoot her in the northside. They shoot animals and all sorts of things. Every single waymarking sign is peppered with air rifle shot.
  The Minister seems to suggest that young people should be encouraged to take up air pistols, of all things. I cannot think of anything worse. If youngsters want to have an air pistol, it would be far better to have them under control in a club where they have no possibility of taking that pistol anywhere other than onto a firing point—certainly not take it off a firing point. To invite them to go around the countryside shooting with air pistols! I cannot think of anything worse.
  Lord Monson: I wholly understand the Government's wish that people should not indefinitely be able to fire pistols in clubs without a licence. I fully accept that and would happily agree with it. But the

  605
  Government seem to be opposed to people trying it out even once or twice and I wonder whether that is not wholly unreasonable.
  The Minister spoke about public safety. Can he explain how possibly public safety could be endangered by someone trying out a pistol at a range, under the close supervision of an experienced official in a club? That same person could fire a .22 rifle anywhere without anybody's supervision.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Balfour: Let me raise one other point at this stage. Clause 36 of the Bill introduces a new Section 15 to the 1988 Act. At page 20 of the Bill, subsection (2) of the clause states that:
  "A club may be approved as a rifle or miniature rifle club by the Secretary of State under section 15 of the 1988 Act and also licensed under this Act as a pistol club".
  In this particular case, perhaps there could be some confusion in the legislation between a rifle club and a pistol club. As I understand the legislation, if someone belongs to a rifle club, he does not need to have a firearm certificate to fire the rifle in the club. On the other hand, if he wishes to fire a pistol in the club, he requires a firearm certificate.
  I wonder whether the Government would look at this matter again. I believe that people should be encouraged to learn how to shoot properly but not necessarily go to the extent of having a firearm certificate purely to use a pistol.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: At the outset, I should make clear that nothing I said earlier should be construed as suggesting that either I or the Government encourage people to play around with air rifles or air pistols. I sought to indicate that the use of low powered air pistols, no doubt under the supervision of gun club members, could be a way of training young people in the use of such weapons, so that they learn how to use them and find out whether they are interested in the sport.
  Lord Gisborough: Youngsters go around the countryside with air rifles and nobody is training them at all. You can find them anywhere in the countryside.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am well aware of that. But I seek to address the concern raised by my noble friend of how gun clubs might encourage younger people into the clubs. I venture to suggest that making it possible for them to use air pistols under supervision and training might be a way for them to acquire some practical experience. It will not only teach them the importance of safety, which my noble friend Lord Balfour has mentioned on more than one occasion, but will enable them to find out whether it is a sport in which they are interested. I believe that my noble friend Lord Balfour is correct in his reference to what happens at rifle clubs. If he and I are right, it is another means by which knowledge and experience can be gained before the young person needs to move on and acquire a firearm certificate.
  606
  I do not demur from the position that the requirement to have a firearm certificate before a pistol can be used will serve to discourage some young people from coming into the sport. I do not deny that at all. Equally, I hope the Committee will recognise that the Government have gone some way toward preserving the sport and in particular the Olympic competitions and the vast majority of the Commonwealth Games competitions and toward providing an incentive for people to remain in the sport, if they so wish. A balance has to be struck.
  If either of the amendments were carried, it would be possible for people to come into gun clubs, learn how to use pistols and use them indefinitely without any check whatsoever by the police as to their suitability to have such experience. They would acquire the expertise and the experience and what they did thereafter would, as I said, be subject to no vetting by the police at all. That is why the Government remain resolutely opposed to the amendments and invite the Committee to vote against them, if either of them are pressed.
  I should mention one other small matter on a point of detail. I understand that the cost of a firearm certificate would not be £ 150—that is the figure mentioned in Clause 14(5). That is the fee for the licence for a club and not for the firearm certificate itself.
  Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, can he say whether club pistols will be allowed which will be able to be used by anybody with a valid firearm certificate?
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My understanding is that that is the position. That reinforces the point that I sought to make earlier; namely, that the fact that one has a firearm certificate does not require one to own a pistol as well.
  Lord Swansea: We have had a good run for our money on this amendment. My object in moving it was to cater for the person—a young chap, perhaps—who is not a member of a rifle club and wants to have a go at the sport. He may have an older friend who is a member of a club and he may have said to him: "I would not mind having a go myself, so his friend may have said: "Come along to the club one evening and we will let you have a go and you can see how you like the game". Of course, he would have his go under strict supervision, and among the first things he would be taught would be the first rules of safety. That is quite essential in the handling of any firearm. Under the eye of an experienced instructor he would have instruction in the safe handling of the weapon before having a go at targets.
  In any event, there seems to be a certain amount of confusion in the mind of the Government over this. I may well return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Licence conditions]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 46A:
  Page 9, line 10, leave out ("imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or").
  The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to remove the imprisonment penalty for offences against Clause 16. The problem is that the law and the rules and regulations that go with it are acquiring a Byzantine complexity. The Minister will point out the protection provided by subsection (3), but it is not a defence against ignorance; it is only a defence against accidental commission of the offence. One cannot take all reasonable steps against the commission of an offence if one is in ignorance of it in the first place.
  The result of subsection (4) as drafted, coupled with all the other responsibilities in terms of security and administration, is likely to result in no suitable people agreeing to be club officials and particularly key holders. As a result, the officials selected may not be the best available, with the attendant risks of offences being committed. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If the Government's view is that this amendment is inappropriate, I support their view. This goes to the heart of the control of clubs. It is fatuous to impose conditions on a licence—and those conditions are only imposed on the persons responsible for the management of a licensed pistol club, with all the possible public dangers that do not need to be spelt out—and it is useless to have licence conditions imposed upon those who manage licensed pistol clubs if the only sanction against not obeying the licence conditions is a fine.
  I would suggest that the Government have pitched this correctly. They have limited the punishment to the magistrates' court—that is summary conviction—and they have put the imprisonment at the maximum single term imposable by the magistrates at six months. That is a maximum, not an automatic penalty. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, there is the saving defence in subsection (3). If somebody is going to propose himself or herself to manage a licensed pistol club without familiarising his or her mind with the details of the licensing conditions, I suggest that such a person is not fit to manage such a club.
  Lord Burton: I may be wrong, but I believe that the Bill will introduce 16 new criminal offences or increased penalties for existing offences. Certainly, if there are not 16 offences, there are a great many penalty clauses. Who would be a club official when, for a simple omission, perhaps when he is off sick, he would be liable for a very heavy fine or six months' imprisonment? It may be that the poor wife of a shooter, who does not even shoot herself, would find herself in this position. I suggest that no one in their right mind would take on the task of administering a club with these penalties in the Bill. As a result of that alone, it is doubtful whether any club will survive.
  Lord Gisborough: Unfortunately, we must support the penalties, because I also cannot see any point in having regulation unless there is some penalty for non-compliance. I should have thought that on the whole magistrates and the police are sensible enough to take a
  608
  reasonable view as to whether or not an offence is deliberate. Where there has been deliberate evasion of the regulations there has to be a penalty.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In rising to oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, I welcome the support I received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
  If the public are to be assured about the safety of the pistol clubs licensed under the new regime, which the Government propose in this legislation, it would be essential that those responsible for their operation pay the closest attention to the conditions that may be specified on their licences. For that reason it would be quite wrong, and would send quite the wrong message, if we were to agree to reduce the penalty for committing the offence of breaching the licence conditions.
  Of course, what the Bill sets out is the maximum penalty, which one imagines would only be imposed for the most extreme breach of the licence conditions. The law relating to firearms is currently complex and it will become more complex once this Bill becomes law. But it will be a necessary part of the management of gun clubs that those responsible for the management are aware of the law and the implications of the law.
  In the debates on this Bill the House has been assured on a number of occasions that those interested in the sport of shooting are responsible members of society. I am happy to accept that assurance. That leads me to express a measure of surprise that they do not welcome the sanction remaining as it is, because it will mean that if an individual manager fails to live up to the high standards which everyone in society would wish him to follow and does so wilfully, he should be properly punished. Nothing we have heard in the debates on this Bill suggests that it will be impossible for the conditions to be understood and followed. If they are followed, there is no reason to worry about the penalty. On the other hand, if we weaken the penalty, it will suggest that this House does not say clearly to those involved in the sport that the licence conditions are important. For those reasons I hope it will be possible for this amendment to be withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee: The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not push this amendment very far. My major concern is the complexity of the legislation. I accept fully the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the Minister regarding the desirability of having penalties.
  I believe that to find people willing to be club secretaries and club officials will be quite difficult. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Exemptions from section 1 of the 1968 Act for officers etc. of licensed pistol clubs]:
  [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 48:
  Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
  NATIONAL FIREARMS COMPUTER DATABASE
  ("—(1) There shall be established a National Firearms Computer Database (NFCD) to—

  (a) record the possession, use and keeping of, and transactions in, firearms and shotguns;

  (b) record details of pistol clubs and ranges as prescribed by the Secretary of State;

  (c) provide on-line access to all police forces;

  (d) provide access by the Secretary of State for the purpose of statistical analysis; and

  (e) provide tandem interface with the Police National Computer.

  (2) The NFCD shall be operated in accordance with the principles of ISO 9000.").
  The noble Earl said: This small group of amendments concerns the desirability of having a computer system or a database to record details of holders of firearms certificates, shotgun certificates, dealers, clubs, ranges, etc.
  I originally put down the amendment, since when the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has put down an amendment in his name. I believe that his amendment is slightly better than mine, so perhaps we may listen to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as he puts his amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: In rising to speak to my amendment, I must say that in my opinion the Home Office must bear and accept some share of the blame for the tragedy of Dunblane. I say that for the simple reason that the Home Office has failed—indeed, I would claim has refused—to introduce a licensing regime which has a reasonable chance of ensuring that a Thomas Hamilton could not obtain or retain a licence for a lethal firearm, whether a pistol, a rifle or a shotgun. However much the Committee may be divided on the merits of the Bill, we are all clearly united in our horror at Dunblane and in our determination to ensure that there should not be another one. Yet there is nothing in the Bill which does anything to make less likely that there could not be another Dunblane using a rifle or shotgun; in other words, some firearm that is not covered by the Bill.
  My amendment seeks to introduce a simple computerised register nationally of all those who hold a licence for a firearm of any kind, whether a pistol that is in one of the remaining categories allowed, a rifle or a shotgun. Long before Dunblane, as some noble Lords will know, I concerned myself with the adequacy of the present arrangements. Indeed, I was pressing the Government between the months of November 1995 and February 1996—the Dunblane tragedy was in March 1996—to do something about this for precisely the reason that the present system of each police force having its own system of licensing with no linkage between them was so wholly unacceptable. That system is quite inexcusable and quite unnecessary.
  The technology for doing this is simple and extremely cheap. Indeed, I have made the simple calculation that for the number of people who have a licence for all
  610
  these weapons, the information could probably be contained in about one gigabyte of information, which a modern home desktop computer has in its hard storage. Even if the figure were 10 times that, it would be an immaterial factor.
  The technology for this has not only been in existence but has been in use for decades. The vehicle and driver licensing system at Swansea was set up in 1973. That system enables the police to check instantly in real time on the driver of any vehicle. Yet there has been no suggestion that the Home Office could consider the suggestions that have been made for the introduction of such a scheme for firearms. If the Government are as unwilling to consider my suggestion as they have been up to now, I shall feel bound to ask the Committee to support me in a vote on this issue.
  Lord Renton: Although I wish to support my noble friend's amendment I cannot share the criticism that he has expressed of the Home Office in this matter. I know from my own experience over the past 51 years in East Anglia—partly as an MP and partly when practising as a barrister—that it is almost impossible to get a licence for the private possession of a handgun unless one is a member of a gun club or has some very special reason for wanting it.
  Under the present law, which has been the law for a great many years, the licence to hold a firearm can be refused by the magistrates on the advice of the police. Licences have always been refused to convicted criminals. I cannot go along with my noble friend on the reason he gives for his excellent amendment, but there is a strong case to be made for there to be a record held centrally and available locally in order to ensure that so far as possible the further firearms provisions to be made by the Bill are enforceable.
  Firearms law has always been difficult to enforce. We know that from some of the tragedies that have occurred. However, it will be made a little easier to enforce—easier for the police and easier for authority generally—if we have a proper system of the kind proposed in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. Until I saw his amendment, I was rather attracted by the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. However, it does not go quite as far as the amendment proposed by my noble friend, and therefore, on balance, I prefer that of my noble friend.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I see two advantages in the system that he proposes. First, there would be one single address to which people might send complaints about the conduct of firearms users where it has not been satisfactory. Secondly, it deals with the problem of people relocating and yet another police force having to start again to process someone's application. I hope that other Members of the Committee will see it in the same way.
  Lord Kimball: I find myself looking at the amendment of my noble friend as a half-way house between what we shall discuss under Amendment No. 77—a full firearms control board. It is a very good

  611
  half-way house. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Burton does not agree. However, we must not discuss Amendment No. 77 at this stage.
  What we have achieved through many police forces is the civilianisation of firearms officers. My noble friend Lord Renton happens to live in one of the best counties for the administration of the Firearms Act. Cambridgeshire is an example to every other county in England. We have civilian firearms officers who know what they are talking about. They deal with the problem and feed it in to the police station. They know and live within the shooting community. Lincolnshire is following the same example. If we are to extend the system of civilian firearms officers to all other police forces, we need my noble friend's amendment to back up that system. The amendment has great merit.
  Baroness Blatch: The proposal for a national database is the subject of Amendments Nos. 48 and 66. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for providing me last Thursday with some background to his Amendment No. 66. My noble friend has indeed discussed this matter with me. However, I should say to him that in the first instance I do not think it is right to require this kind of database by means of primary legislation. These matters are better dealt with administratively.
  Secondly, we are already discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers a system called PHOENIX, a computer based system, which will be available to firearms licensing departments throughout the United Kingdom. PHOENIX will contain details of certificate holders and firearms dealers and will also contain information on persons who have had certificates revoked or are otherwise considered to be unfit to possess a firearm.
  The system will provide on-line access, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford suggests, to all police forces and other national police computer agencies and contain criminal record details. We are also considering with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether PHOENIX would be able to hold details of individual weapons, too. But we do not currently plan to have the national insurance numbers of gun licence holders put into the system. I know that that is something about which my noble friend feels very strongly. He will know that I have much sympathy with the point he makes. We do not believe that there is a particular need for that at this moment since the existing arrangements for the issue of firearm and shotgun certificates already allow the police to make very thorough checks of applicants' identities.
  Details of approved clubs are kept centrally by the Home and Scottish Offices, and individual forces, as my noble friend Lord Kimball has said, also keep local records. Perhaps I may interject a personal note here. Local information is very useful in the situation we are talking about. To dovetail that with the national network for cross-country inter-communication is so important. The police forces also provide statistical returns to the Home and Scottish Offices on firearms licensing. These are published annually in statistical bulletins, which can be found in the Library of the House. I know that that is not the point that my noble friend is making. He is
  612
  talking about a network of ownership, personal information, criminal conviction certificates and so forth. I say to my noble friend that there is a partial read-across on unique numbers to the identity card debate. He will know that we are giving thought to the possibility of using a unique number. In the meantime we believe that using the PHOENIX system with the police would meet in large measure the objectives of this amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Those who were involved in the Police Bill yesterday will know that I moved amendments which expressed doubt about the availability of the PHOENIX database to which the Minister has referred because doubts have been expressed as to whether it would be available in time to meet the needs of the Criminal Records Agency, which is another potential user of the same service.
  I have received unequivocal assurances from the Minister. I believe she said that not only would it be up and running, but that it is up and running. I do not believe that anyone can go further than that. I have sympathy with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his amendment. I believe that control by a central database, provided that there are precautions in compliance with the Data Protection Act and other measures which may be necessary for the protection of individual privacy, is a good thing. But having listened to the Minister and what she said about the PHOENIX database and the undesirability of having the specification of a database on the face of the Bill, I believe that the noble Lord would be wise not to press this amendment to a Division.
  Lord Burton: The purpose of the amendment is to increase security. The database does not remove power or information from local police; it merely increases the availability of the information. Nearly all police forces have computers, but at the moment a great many of them are incompatible one with another. That means that there are quite a number of problems in trying to obtain information outside a constabulary area. It is very important that there should be one central base, as for vehicle licensing, which can be dialled directly so that the police can have access to the system and find exactly the information required and, what is more, that it can be done at any hour of the day or night. At the moment the computers are available only when the firearms officer, who is very often a civilian who works normal office hours, is on duty. Accordingly, if something crops up during the night there is probably no one available to answer even the request on the local computer, whereas with a central computer there would be a 24-hour service.
  The Earl of Lytton: I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said. I would like to pay tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. It goes absolutely to the heart of Lord Cullen's Report. As I said earlier in dealing with Amendment No. 33, he identified a system failure. The way to deal with that is to tighten up the management procedures. To do that

  613
  one needs to have national consistency and consistent input. We are talking about the upgrading of the management of the licensing system. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has put the matter extremely eloquently.
  This amendment sets no more than the most basic minimum criteria that anyone could possibly think of for some form of on-line, dial-up system. If the PHOENIX system, to which the noble Baroness referred, does not meet that, it is not up to scratch. In that case this amendment is an extremely valuable addition on the face of the Bill. The situation is that if the amendment does no good it will do no harm. In any event, we must be satisfied, in dealing with the matter in this House, that we have good quality, consistent management via a database which can be accessed. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment does no more than state the obvious and the absolute minimum criteria.
  6.45 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: Before withdrawing my amendment I would like to make one observation. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are aware that the Metropolitan Police has an extremely good computer system at New Scotland Yard, which is just a short distance from us. Even the Metropolitan Police cannot tell, when it attends a domestic incident, whether at that address there are any firearms or shotguns. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Lord Marlesford: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I fear that it is yet another attempt by the Home Office to say, "Don't interfere on our patch". If the new system were to meet my criteria, well and good. I am not saying that it should not go ahead. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee one example. If someone were to be convicted of a crime which would disqualify him from being issued with any certificate for a firearm—a shotgun, pistol or rifle—and if that crime were committed outside the area in which the convicted person had already been granted a licence, there is no machinery whatever, unless it is a very serious and notorious crime, whereby the police force in the area which had granted the licence would be able to revoke it. It simply would not know about the case.
  I am proposing something which is very simple, very modest and very easy to carry out. It is essential that it is done. I do not have enough confidence to leave the matter to Home Office assertions that it is dealing with it because it has been saying that for a long time. I would very much like to test the opinion of the Committee.
  Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend heard the Minister say that she was in negotiation with the chief officers of police with a view to establishing just the kind of system that he has in mind?
  Lord Marlesford: I did hear that and I was delighted to do so. I hope that, if the amendment is carried, that will be an additional spur for them to do so. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for the Bill.
  Baroness Blatch: I do not wish to discourage my noble friend from pressing the amendment, but I would
  614
  rather he did not. He cannot press it at this point. It is Amendment No. 66 which was grouped with the previous amendment. Therefore, my noble friend will have to be patient and press it in the appropriate chronological order.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Expanding ammunition etc.: supplementary]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 50A:
  Page 12, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
  The noble Earl said: I can understand the need to ban the sale of expanding ammunition, with certain exceptions for humane killing reasons. That will have the effect of reducing its availability and thus, if there is a further disaster, there is less likelihood of expanding ammunition being used. The problem is that Clause 26 removes the previous exemption for collectors. It also includes ammunition that is inert, as even the actual bullets themselves are caught. As no handguns larger than .22 calibre will remain in private hands one asks what a ban on collectors will achieve. It should be remembered that if in future illegal ammunition is obtained non-expanding projectiles can easily be converted into expanding projectiles by means of a hacksaw, a pair of pliers, a lathe or even a humble electric drill. It is even possible to reload a cartridge with a bullet that is put in back to front. My amendment will replace the exemption of collectors and enable them to retain expanding ammunition under Section 5A by a collector's clause on their firearm certificate. Of course, there would be a limit placed on the number of each type or calibre as agreed between the collector and the police. I beg to move.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: Amendment No. 52 in my name is part of this group of amendments. The purpose is to clarify the wording of Clause 26 which leaves open to doubt the position of agricultural tenants who, depending on the terms of their tenancy, are normally responsible for pest control on their holdings and have statutory rights to control hares and rabbits under the Ground Game Act. I hope that my noble friend will agree that those fanners should continue to use expanding ammunition in appropriate cases and where authorised by their firearm certificates. To achieve this, I believe that it is necessary to amend the clause to confirm that the concept of estate management covering tenant farmers is that contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The amendment does not in any way disturb the balance of interest between landlord and tenant but merely ensures that farm tenants will not be inadvertently restricted in future from lawful access to ammunition required for safe and humane wildlife control.
  Lord Burton: It was as recently as 1992, when the United Kingdom came into line with European law, that

  615
  the Government put forward various amendments. They have now changed the position. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right. If subsections (2) and (3) were removed it would avoid all the complications of cartridge exhibitions. Some people have very valuable collections of cartridges. It is ridiculous that an empty cartridge in a glass case will no longer be legal because it has a soft-nosed bullet.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I speak to Amendment No. 51 which is to do with practising with expanding ammunition. Several attempts have been made to cover the point that people who use expanding ammunition legitimately in the humane killing of animals need to ensure a high degree of accuracy to avoid pain to the animal and achieve a quick destruction. The Government have suggested that the words "in connection with" cover the circumstances in which the shooter needs to zero his pistol or practise with or test the ammunition. The wording is acceptable for zeroing; it is doubtful, however, whether it covers practice in shooting at inanimate objects in order to achieve the necessary standards of accuracy. The amendment attempts to provide for such circumstances. For instance, when stalking it may be necessary to dispatch an injured animal which is on the move as quickly as possible. The shooter needs to be able to practise at the discipline known as running deer. All shooters of such quarry need to be aware of the main areas to aim for, with allowances being made for distance, wind speed, trajectory and so forth, in order to afford the quickest and cleanest dispatch of the quarry. I believe that the amendment strengthens the purpose of the clause and makes the effects more efficient in practice.
  The Earl of Balfour: Once one has a gun properly tuned in—I am referring to a .22 or .243 rifle—it pays every time to use expanding ammunition. One is then much more likely to kill and not wound an animal. The trouble with a solid-nosed bullet is that it can make a neat round hole through whatever one is aiming at. The poor creature then crawls away and dies in a hole or in the bushes. On humane grounds I hope that there will be no restriction on the use of both types of ammunition. One uses solid ammunition to home in on the right position of the target and then hollow-nosed ammunition to go out and kill an animal. It is important that both forms of ammunition are available to farmers, landowners, gamekeepers and so on.
  Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to all my noble friends and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for raising these important points which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 50A, 51 and 52.1 have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 50A, tabled by the noble Earl. The effect of the amendment, as he has explained, would be to allow collectors of expanding ammunition to continue their collections without the need for the Secretary of State's authority. A government amendment was successfully tabled in another place which would have had the effect of preventing collectors of ammunition from keeping expanding ammunition in their collections. We have since received representations from some collectors who have pointed out that typically only one or two rounds of a wide
  616
  variety of ammunition types are held in a collection and that to require those to be surrendered would undermine the integrity of the sets that may have been built up over a number of years, at some considerable cost to the individual collectors themselves. We are sympathetic to the representations we have received and, if the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to introduce an amendment to this effect at Report.
  I believe that the amendment to Clause 26, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Peel, is unnecessary. The present wording of the subsection which deals with a certificate or permit condition in relation to expanding ammunition uses the words "in connection with". That is the wording used elsewhere in the firearms legislation to cover related matters. The Bill has been carefully drafted to cover not only the actual use but also the preparatory stages that may have to be followed to ensure that the certificate holder is able to shoot the animal humanely. That includes allowing the certificate holder to zero or adjust the gun sights, as well as general testing and practice. If we refer to those matters expressly here we could cast doubt on the wording elsewhere in the legislation. If it helps to ease my noble friends' concerns, this is a point which we can include in guidance to the police.
  I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising the possible effect of Clause 26 of the Bill on agricultural tenants. I understand his concerns that the term "management of an estate" should apply to those agricultural holdings which are managed by tenants. However, the clause as currently drafted will already include the kinds of holdings and tenancy arrangements to which my noble friend refers. The present term "management of an estate" is sufficiently broad to include all manner of legal forms of occupation and management of land. To state on the face of the Bill that certain arrangements are included may imply that other arrangements are excluded. When issuing guidance to the police on the application of the clause we will ensure that this point is properly addressed. I therefore ask all my noble friends not to pursue their amendments.
  Earl Attlee: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, will carefully study the case law on Pepper v. Hart. On the basis that the noble Baroness intends to table a better amendment in her own name, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7 p.m.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
  Page 13, line 3, at end insert ("or for practice or testing related thereto").
  The noble Earl said: I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for going some way towards satisfying my concerns on this matter, and I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
  Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
  ("(7) In subsection (8) (interpretation) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
  "(c) in this section "management of any estate" includes the management of any agricultural holding within the meaning of section 1 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and section 38 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995."").
  The noble Lord said: I, too, thank my noble friend for that reassuring statement with which I am entirely happy.
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 53:
  Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
  ADAPTED SHOT GUNS: REQUIREMENT FOR FIREARM CERTIFICATE
  ("In section 1 of the 1968 Act (requirement for a firearm certificate), subsection (3A) shall be omitted.").
  The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 84, 85 and 90.
  These amendments were originally in two groups. My first amendment undoes an amendment made in another place to require only one referee for a shotgun certificate. The next amendment goes further in that it removes shotguns from Section 1 of the 1968 Act. It is surprising that before 1967 no certificate was needed for a shotgun.
  My motivation for putting down the amendments is that shotguns are not treated as powerful weapons, which defies all logic. For a long time a sawn-off shotgun was the preferred weapon of criminals, although I understand that machine pistols are more popular with sophisticated drug gangs even though they are Section 5 weapons.
  When one compares the size of a 12-bore shotgun cartridge with a .22 or even a 9mm round, the latter two appear to be puny. Even more important is the fact that a shotgun cartridge can carry a variety of shot or even a solid slug. I covered that point in greater detail during the first day in Committee.
  If handguns were not available to Hamilton, he might well have had a shotgun which he could have illegally modified to be concealable. The result would not be much different. It would not help the Committee for me to describe the differences. It is important to recognise that shotguns have a legitimate and widespread use in the countryside for sport and for controlling vermin.
  There are considerable foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors. In addition, there is a great deal of employment associated with field sports, which must not be jeopardised. No doubt many Members of the Committee, including the Minister, will tell me that the Bill is about handguns or victimising the legal owners of them. I should like to think that it is about increasing public safety and protecting the shooting community from having another madman within its midst.
  My amendment will increase public safety and make the Bill much simpler and easier to understand. I expect some resistance to the amendments but I shall be interested to hear what the Committee feels about them. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl in what he says about shotguns and the requirement for a firearm certificate for such weapons. Shotguns are not firearms. They are used for completely separate purposes and disciplines. It is a matter that we have discussed at the FCC which disagrees completely with the noble Earl on this issue. We believe that the present laws regarding shotguns are adequate and are working well. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may add a few words. I hope that the Government will not unite shotgun and firearm certificates. They are completely different. That is the impression I gained from the amendment. The two certificates should be kept totally apart and treated differently.
  Baroness Blatch: I have to say to my noble friends and the noble Earl that the Government believe that the existing controls on shotguns are in most respects adequate. Most semi-automatic or pump action short barrelled shotguns are prohibited, and shotguns which are capable of firing three or more shots without reloading are subject to control by firearm certificates in the same way as a rifle.
  The Committee will know that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons, especially in the countryside, why people should have ordinary shotguns. Very many people own them—over 700, 000 in Great Britain as a whole.
  People who wish to have them must first obtain a shotgun certificate from the police and satisfy them that they will keep and use the gun securely. Police can refuse to issue a certificate if they believe that the applicant has no good reason for having a shotgun.
  Lord Cullen's Inquiry did not address shotguns, which have always been subject to a separate system of controls. He was very clear in his report that he saw shotguns as a very different from other kinds of firearms, which agrees with both my noble friends who have spoken on this matter. He said at paragraph 7.16:
  "The considerations relating to the possession and use of shotguns are concerned with very different areas of activity from those relating to handguns. I am not persuaded that it is justifiable to approach all these types in essentially the same manner. That is quite apart from the fact that I do not think that the availability of shotguns is a matter which has a tenable connection with the circumstances with which this Inquiry is concerned".
  Shotguns could be purchased and owned without any formalities until the early 1960s, whereas handguns have been subject to very tight restrictions since the early 1900s and rifles since the 1920s. The regime for shotguns was tightened in 1988, but there remains a clear distinction in the certification regimes.
  Nevertheless, the Government are taking the opportunity in the Bill to rationalise and strengthen the controls on the sale, transfer and disposal of shotguns.

  619
  Aside from that, the Government believe that the present controls are adequate and I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: It seems that I am not receiving a great deal of support for or interest in the amendment. I am a little disappointed that we did not look at it closer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved,.]
  Clause 31 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 14, line 39, at end insert ("or has most recently resided or is reasonably expected to reside in the future, ").
  The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos, 61 and 63. Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 seek to address a problem relating to UK citizens who are not currently resident in the UK. Obvious examples are service personnel and overseas expatriate workers who bring considerable foreign exchange into the country.
  Under Sections 26A and 26B of the 1968 Act, as amended by Clause 31 of the Bill, applications for certificates have to be lodged with the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. If a serviceman is living overseas, he will not be able to make a valid application until he moves back into the UK. That will create a range of unnecessary difficulties which my amendment seeks to address.
  Amendment No. 63 seeks to have a European firearms pass and firearm or shotgun certificate combined. An EU driving licence is issued by the DVLA and covers the whole of the EU. I appreciate that there may be difficulties with the amendment, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the cross-border movement of guns with European firearms passes. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: It is possible for a person domiciled in, say, Dundee to obtain a firearm certificate which allows him to take his weapons anywhere in the country. Normally, one must declare where one intends to use a firearm; in other words, on whose land. My firearm certificate does not allow me to use my gun outside the footage of my estate, which is my home.
  However, it is possible for a person to obtain a "roving" firearm certificate, if I may put it that way, in order to go stalking, say, in the Highlands. He may be able to obtain such a certificate from the police in the area in which he is domiciled. If he moves to another area he should, through his chief officer of police, link up with the police
  620
  of that area in order to have his certificate transferred. That is a different matter, but it is the law as I understand it. I hope that if I am wrong I shall be corrected.
  Earl Attlee: I believe that the noble Earl has not quite understood the purpose of my amendment. It addresses the problem of people who are resident overseas.
  Lord Monson: Unlike Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55, this is a moderate amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 would allow a person living abroad to apply for a certificate before returning to this country. If the police were obliged to consider applications in such cases they would have little chance of meeting the applicant in person and no chance of inspecting his home conditions or security if he had not yet acquired the domestic premises in which he intended to reside.
  The applicant would also be free to choose between applying to the last local police force from which he had obtained a licence and any number of police forces for other areas where he might reasonably be intending to live. In some cases, that could lead to a duplication of effort on the part of the police force and a measure of confusion.
  The Government are aware that in a small number of cases the requirement for residence in order to apply for a certificate has caused problems, in particular with servicemen returning from abroad. The Firearms Consultative Committee considered the issue and its conclusions are set out in its seventh annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House. The committee concluded that it was not necessary to amend the law but that chief officers should continue to treat cases sympathetically and as quickly as possible when servicemen return. That seems entirely sensible.
  Amendment No. 63 relates to European firearms passes. Such a document is given force by the European weapons directive, which was agreed by member states. In order to be incorporated in a firearm or shotgun certificate, the exact form of the EFP would have to be reproduced on the certificate, making it a very unwieldy document. Furthermore, when a shooter wishes to visit another member state he must send his EFP to the authorities in that country to have it endorsed before he travels. If the EFP were to become part of the firearm or shotgun certificate the shooter would have to send the certificate as well. While his EFP and his certificate were out of the country he would have difficulty proving his legal ownership of any firearms or ammunition in his possession and he certainly would not be able to purchase any ammunition for use. In those circumstances it appears to the Government that Amendment No. 63 is not particularly sensible and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister, although I am not entirely convinced about the situation as regards overseas workers. Sometimes it is necessary for them to return to the UK at very short notice. It would make sense for them to have an appropriate certificate in place

  621
  just in case. However, I accept some of the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I wish to be able to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 not moved.]
  7.15 p.m.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 15, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Duties of chief officers of police under sections 26A and 26B.
  26C. The chief officer of police shall carry out his duties under sections 26A and 26B above in accordance with the principles of ISO 9000.".").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 62 I realise that I am having to sing for my dinner. In his report Lord Cullen makes it clear that the Central Scotland Police failed in that they issued certificates to a man who was patently unsuitable. Lord Cullen also illustrated in paragraph 6.59 that senior officers did not understand the law. The paperwork, the forms and so forth that they were using were not kept up to date. The RL3A form was referred to in the report as unimpressive—I have a copy here—and did not ask as many specific questions as the one recommended by the Home Office in 1969.
  It has been suggested to me that my amendment is a polite way of saying that the police will have to do the job properly. I say nothing about that. However, the Central Scotland Police will not have been the only sleepy provincial police force without an up-to-date procedure. Even worse, police policy around the country varies even between similar areas and we shall be addressing that point in a later amendment.
  My amendment refers to ISO 9000, which is similar to BS5750 and is a total quality management system (TQM). The Government have rightly encouraged the development of TQM in industry and commerce and are pursuing it with even greater vigour in the forces. It is not a system of unnecessary bureaucracy but more a means of getting things right first time.
  As we are tragically aware, we cannot afford to make mistakes when issuing certificates. The mistake in question will cost an absolute minimum of £150 million and probably a great deal more. It is perhaps worth having a look at what is involved, as many Members of the Committee may not be familiar with TQM.
  The first requirement is to understand who your customer is, what his requirement is and then to delight him. That is a peculiar concept if you are running a prison service, but when you think a little you realise that the customer is the general public. Similarly, when determining a firearms application, the question is important. In fact, there may be more than one customer; the applicant and the public. You are then required to have a laid down procedure to ensure that the processes are always carried out in the same way in order to deliver a consistent and measurable performance. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to that earlier. It is then important to measure performance indicators such as time
  622
  to process applications, the number of appeals, whether successful or not, customer satisfaction and the cost of operations to name but a few.
  Having measured the performance, the procedure and processes must be reviewed in order that any room for improvement can be identified. An example of that in firearms administration would be if it were realised that the firearms inquiry officer on the ground did not have all the background information to the case. Another would be if the chief officer actually signing the certificate did not have all the available information in front of him when there were any contra-indications to signing. Both those problems were identified in Lord Cullen's report and an organisation running an ISO 9000 system would not easily make those mistakes.
  It is important to understand that my amendment does not mean that the police will have to have an ISO 9000, although I accept that the best way in which to comply with the clause would be to have one as it involves continuous validation. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to make only a very small point which I perhaps should have made on earlier amendments. ISO 9000 is not a permanent classification. It has already changed and is now 9001. It is quite unsuitable to put it into legislation.
  Earl Attlee: I agree with the noble Lord on that point. In fact, we used to be working to B 5750. That is a valid criticism and I am sure that the Minister will not hesitate to draw my attention to it.
  Lord Burton: It is vital that the police should have proper procedures as regards the issuing of certificates. It is quite clear that such procedures did not exist in central Scotland, as the noble Earl has just said. Indeed, I have before me a note from the Clyde Valley Pistol Club which says that Hamilton was not even a member of the club for his 4-bore pistol when he applied for it. Not only is it that he was quite unfit to have that pistol, but he was not even a member of the club. If the minimum investigation had taken place, that would have come to light.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I believe that it is accepted on all sides of the Committee that it is important for police officers to have in place policy statements and quality checks to govern their firearms licensing systems. There can be little doubt that after chief officers have read the Cullen Report, that that concern will have been reinforced. I am quite sure that throughout the country, every effort will have been made to go over the systems which are in place.
  This is a matter on which the Government consult with the police force regularly through meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Neither the police nor the Government believe that it would be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular standard. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, observed, ISO 9000 is to some extent a moving target, if I may use that expression in the context of the debate.

  623
  Indeed, the noble Earl himself said that he is merely looking to embody the principle of ISO 9000 rather than the detail of it. I suggest that it would be a serious mistake to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular document which is bound to change. That is not in any sense to minimise the importance of having good management standards, and I hope that with that assurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee: The Minister has attempted to reassure us that after the disaster at Dunblane, the administration of firearms will be conducted differently. I imagine that after Hungerford, Ministers said exactly the same thing. I am rather disturbed because we seem to have made rather similar mistakes. I accept the comment made by the noble and learned Lord that it is not appropriate to put such a provision on the face of the Bill and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
  The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House now resume and in moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at twenty five minutes past eight.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise because we are always willing to be accommodating in these matters but our principal spokesman for the next business is not yet in the Chamber. Perhaps we could continue to deal with this legislation for another five minutes.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I withdraw the Motion which my noble friend sought to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 65:
  Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
  POSSESSION OF AIR WEAPONS BY MINORS
  ("In section 22(4) of the 1968 Act (possession of air weapons by minors), for "fourteen" there is substituted "eighteen".").
  The noble Earl said: This amendment and Amendment No. 72, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are both aimed at the better control of air guns in our society. That is briefly touched on in the Cullen Report at paragraph 9.118 and may also have been supported indirectly by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.
  I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention earlier today to the briefing from the Firearms Consultative Committee. Those briefing notes were placed in the Library following consideration in another place of the issue of raising the age for air gun use.
  I believe that the age of 14 is unnecessarily young for involvement with air guns and, indeed, other weapons; and I believe that 18 represents an age of increasing maturity and residual suitability. That is an argument
  624
  based on a moral premise that the best way in which to stem the rise of a gun culture is to separate it off and to restrict it to adult society alone.
  In their search of adulthood, young people have many other aspects of living in a community to master. Weapon use is the least of those and can be restricted safely to a threshold on the early years of adulthood.
  In Amendment No. 72, which is the more significant of the two amendments, I see every advantage in there being a register of all air guns with their location and ownership recorded and updated. I see no advantage in not doing so and every advantage in knowing at least to where one may complain about the misuse of an air gun. Those air guns are not toys. It is possible to have a fatal accident with an air gun and it is possible to blind someone, not to mention the potential harassment of birds and animals.
  I have no problem with real hunting for food or for a cull but I am far less happy when the killing of animals is for vicarious pleasure. I hope that the Committee will see the merit of knowing where every air gun is located and so support the amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: I am concerned about this amendment partly for the reason that in Section 22(3) of the Firearms Act 1968, it states that a person aged 15 may use a shotgun provided he is accompanied by an adult who is over the age of 21.
  While I have some sympathy with the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that 14 is too young, it might achieve something if he left the age at 14 but provided that for the first two years of possessing the air gun the person ought to be accompanied by somebody over the age of 21.
  In respect of the other amendment, it should read Section 1 (3)(b) not 1 (3)(6). As I see the position, if I am correct, subsection (b) will read:
  "an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol, not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act".
  That would leave out the words "specially dangerous". I am not very happy about that, particularly as subsection (3)(b) applies the rules made by the Secretary of State in respect of the "register of transactions" for firearms dealers in Section 40 of the 1968 Act. However, I believe that air guns are fairly well protected under Clause 38 of the Bill.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: I rise briefly to add my support to that already expressed for the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on Amendment No. 72, which is also tabled in my name. I happen to agree with the noble Earl that some revision of the age limit for air weapons (to which Amendment No. 65 refers) is also desirable. However, as far as concerns Amendment No. 72, the noble Earl has correctly described it as making it possible for the Secretary of State to require a register of air weapons. I believe that that is a desirable aim.
  Lord Gisborough: It is absolutely essential that youngsters, even those younger than 14, should be able to shoot air guns. However, it is equally essential that

  625
  they should only be allowed to do so if they are accompanied by a person of a proper age. There is no doubting the fact that there is a positive air gun menace in the countryside with everything being shot at on occasions. But to have a register would, I believe, prove to be a phenomenal task. I am not even sure whether air guns are numbered, and there must be hundreds and thousands of them in the country. Surely it would be an impossible task to try to keep track of them.
  Lord Monson: On Amendment No. 65, I agree with other Members of the Committee that raising the age limit to 18 goes rather too far. There might be a case for 15 or 16, but better still might be the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that 14 or 15 year-olds with air guns should be accompanied by an older person.
  As regards Amendment No. 72, again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The bureaucracy implied by the amendment would be enormous. There is much misuse of guns. The point is that it is illegal anyway for the most part. The difficulty is catching the people concerned, and I do not believe that licensing would make any difference. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl should think again about the matter.
  Lord Swansea: I support my noble friend Lord Gisborough in his remarks because the prime objective is to teach the safe handling of air weapons. From there, one can progress to any other type of firearm. It is essential that the safe handling of air guns, or air rifles, should be taught at the earliest age possible. The youngster should be allowed to have his air rifle as long as he is accompanied by a responsible adult.
  Earl Russell: I must declare a non-pecuniary interest in supporting my noble friend's amendment. The air gun menace to which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred is not confined to the countryside; indeed, Brent is hardly that. However, one day my wife was standing beside the backdoor of our home when something with a loud thwack hit the wall within an inch of her head. We subsequently found an air gun pellet which had ricocheted into the house and come to rest under the radiator. I do not feel very happy about such situations. I agree with my noble friend that 14 is not always the most responsible age in a person's life. One way or another, I should like to see greater control on such potentially dangerous weapons.
  Earl Attlee: Bearing in mind the well-known cruelty to cats, cattle and so on, I believe that the problem that we are now experiencing is lack of supervision. The actual age of someone using an air rifle—or even a shotgun or a firearm—is not the problem; it is the lack of supervision.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Government are well aware of public concern over the misuse of air weapons by young people. Indeed, as Members of the Committee have already said, the matter was raised in another place. Following that debate, the issue of air
  626
  weapons and young people was placed before the Firearms Consultative Committee, which was asked to look at the issues involved. I understand that the matter was discussed at a meeting earlier this month and a paper in that respect has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.
  The Firearms Consultative Committee concluded that it would be a mistake to change the current arrangements which have been carefully formulated over a period of time without a clear plan and identification of any major weaknesses. I commend that paper to Members of the Committee who are interested in the topic. I hope that it will reassure them that Amendment No. 65 is unnecessary.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I should point out to him that I read the paper to which he referred because it was commended to us by the Minister. However, is the Firearms Consultative Committee (which is chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury) a truly independent body? Who does it represent and who are its members?
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am unable, off the top of my head, to give the noble Lord details of every member of the committee. However, I believe that the membership is well known in the sense that details of it have previously been published. If the noble Lord wishes to be informed as to the detail of every member, I should be happy to arrange for him to receive such information.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned to know whether the committee is impartial. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has been active in promoting amendments to the Bill, which is entirely his privilege. My question is whether the FCC is a government organisation. I should also like to know in what way it is impartial and in what way the evidence which the noble and learned Lord has adduced can be treated as being impartial evidence on the issue.
  Earl Attlee: Is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, aware that there are two senior police officers on the committee and, indeed, a representative of the Home Office?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what I was asking about.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I believe that it has been made clear in the past but I am happy to make the position clear again. The FCC is a body which is independent of government. It has represented among its membership a number of interests which range from my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, who is the chairman, to chief constables, lawyers involved in the prosecution of criminal offences, those with a particular interest in the gun trade and in shooting as a sport, civil servants, the Keeper of Exhibits at the Imperial War Museum, and others. Because it is an independent body, those who are members of it are entitled to their independent views.

  627
  As a Member of this Chamber, it is entirely a matter for my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury what role he chooses to play in our debates. The Government are not bound to accept the advice that they receive; but they are perfectly entitled to take account of it. I suggest to the noble Lord that the paper to which I referred, which is to be found in the Library, supports the position which the Government seek to adopt in relation to Amendment No. 65; namely, that there is no justification for changing the law in the manner suggested.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 72 which is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey. The rules governing the types of air weapon which require a firearm certificate have been the same for many years. The Firearms Act 1968 states that an air weapon requires a firearm certificate if it is of a type which the Secretary of State has declared in rules to be "specially dangerous".
  Those rules currently take the form of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules of 1969. Their effect is that an air weapon will require a firearm certificate if it has a kinetic energy—that is, the force with which the pellet comes out of the gun—in excess of 12 foot pounds, or in the case of an air pistol a kinetic energy in excess of six foot pounds. An air weapon which has a kinetic energy of less than these limits does not require a firearm certificate. The effect of the rules is that more powerful air guns require a licence; less powerful ones do not. It has, I suggest, been correctly accepted for many years that that is the only sensible approach that should be taken on this issue.
  It would be possible to bring all air weapons under licensing control. It is of course accepted that there are tragic accidents from time to time involving air guns which are not currently required to be held on a certificate. However, the Government's own amendment on air pistols will ensure that the more powerful weapons will become prohibited, while those which fire pellets of up to 5.5mm will be treated in the same way as small calibre pistols, will have to be held under a firearm certificate and be kept and used in licensed pistol clubs.
  To make other low powered air weapons subject to certification would be—as I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough observed—a mammoth task involving a substantial number of low calibre pistols. On the basis of the advice the Government have received from the Firearms Consultative Committee, it is not considered that that is justified. It is, however, important to bear in mind that, while less powerful air weapons do not require a certificate, there are nevertheless extensive restrictions in law on their purchase, possession and use.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would allow the Secretary of State to distinguish between those air weapons which require a certificate and those which do not by reference to some criterion other than their degree of danger or their power. For the reasons that I hope I have successfully put across, the Government consider that that would be the wrong approach. In our view the degree of danger of an air weapon is the best way of distinguishing between those air weapons which require to be held under a certificate
  628
  and those which do not, and the power is the best way of determining the degree of danger. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will also be persuaded not to insist on his amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The dinner hour is safe; I shall not press this amendment. I think we have established that there is a considerable free-for-all as regards air guns at the present moment. No one has said that there is not. I certainly believe that there needs to be greater control. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  7.43 p.m.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Police Bill be postponed until after the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill. If the House agrees to this Motion, the effect would be to allow us to take the social security Bill in the dinner break and to complete the Firearms (Amendment) Bill before proceeding with the Police Bill. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Police Bill be postponed until after the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
  7.44 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have it on command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  On Question, Bill read a third time.
  Clause 8 [Reduction of compensation payment]:
  Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() Where the total amount of recoverable benefit shown on the certificate exceeds a limit prescribed by regulations, a person who makes an offer of a compensation payment (whether by payment into court or otherwise) shall state whether that compensation payment has been calculated in accordance with this section and, if so, the amount allowed in the offer for each head of compensation

  629
  listed in column 1 of Schedule 2 and the amount of each recoverable benefit which has been deducted from each of those heads of compensation.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As anyone who has attended these debates will know, since the beginning of the consideration of the Bill in this House—at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—we have sought to advance the cause of the amendment that I now move. It is substantially the same as the amendment which will subsequently be proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, except that we have modified our amendment because we refer to the situation where recoverable benefit exceeds a certain sum, as specified in the amendment. That sum will be specified by regulation and therefore it can be specified by the Government. Consequently, any argument they may have had about the bureaucracy involved in dealing with small claims falls as the matter can be regulated by the Government.
  We have referred to our central issue many times; namely, that the terms of the compensation should be available to the victim in the form of an offer which contains not merely the gross sum but also a specification of the elements listed in column 1 of Schedule 2. Further, there should be specified the sums liable for recovery under these heads. In other words what we want, and what we have talked about, is full disclosure by law at the onset of the negotiations. As I said, we hope that the modification we propose tonight will persuade the Minister how moderate and reasonable we are in that we refer only to the situation where recoverable benefit exceeds a certain sum which can be specified by regulation.
  We have said many times why we want this measure but it is worth explaining it yet again. There are three reasons. First, this kind of formulation in law for full disclosure is justified in terms of equity and natural justice. The victim is entitled to know everything that is known to the compensator. The victim is entitled to have what has been called the cards on the table. The victim should not be asked to settle in ignorance and subsequently have to complain that he settled in ignorance. In equity and in natural justice the victim is entitled to full disclosure.
  Secondly, the people who advise us have stressed that only in that way can we avoid the possibility of what I suppose one must call skulduggery; namely, the fear that without this knowledge the compensator may be tempted to exploit his position and that he may allow full recoupment against a global offer when the law clearly implies that that should not take place. To avoid that possibility there must be full disclosure.
  Thirdly, as we have said all along in sharp contrast to what the Minister has said, we believe that this measure will facilitate a quick out-of-court settlement. We believe that the ordinary person will want to know all the facts—what they are entitled to and what will be snatched back by the Government. We have heard many analogies made. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred
  630
  to a lecture. When one buys a house or deals with the Inland Revenue one wants to know the facts and the details, although one never gets them. One wants to have all the facts that are available to the other party made available to oneself. If one has that information, one must make the best of it.
  What have the Government said in answer to what seems to us a reasonable, sensible plea? What has been said by their representatives, the representatives of the insurance industry? Three types of reply have been advanced. If I may be allowed to distort the analogy of the touchstone, we have had the reply protective, the reply superior and the reply realistic. The reply protective says that we are playing the solicitor's game. It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who said that we were opening a can of worms; that all we will do is to delay the settlement and "work up" the clients; and that the poor client, the poor victim, will go further into benefit and therefore into debt while his or her solicitor plays the game and opens the can of worms.
  The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, in order to protect the good name of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, my speech was referred to in Hansard under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who said those words.
  Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if I am not wrong, but Hansard is, I apologise on behalf of Hansard. That was the argument raised. Whoever's idea it was in the first instance, we cannot understand it. We cannot square the assertion with the victim's constant desire for the quantum. We are told that the victim wants the quantum. If that is all he or she cares about, he will see through the solicitor opening the can of worms. He will say, "Don't keep mucking about with the can of worms. I want the quantum." The picture of the victim painted by the noble Earl does not square with the picture of the naive victim playing the solicitor's game. We cannot understand that argument in the overwhelming majority of cases.
  Having been given all that information—it will not be extensive; there are only a few heads in the schedule—a client may be led by the nose by the solicitor into wanting the information and holding up the process. But if that is what he wants, he is entitled to act in that way. If the client is obstinate, as the noble Earl views it, the only way to settle the matter is to give him the information. Let him have the quantum.
  When we stress this point in debate the Minister falls back on the reply superior. The reply superior is often accompanied by a nod, a wink and the tapping of the nose. We are told that these obstinate people could find out the information anyway. If they read the rules, or had good solicitors who read the rules and regulations, they could work out for themselves what deductions there would be in the broad quantum. If I have it right, and Hansard has not let me down, that is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said at col. 992 in Committee.
  We were told subsequently that one can ask the CRU on the telephone and it will give all kinds of details which it would not normally make available. We were

  631
  told that one can negotiate for a net amount. One can have an understanding that if the amount has to be adjusted subsequently that will be all right. We were told that in all sorts of ways one could get round the issue by operation of the old boy net, by nodding, winking and tapping one's nose, and that therefore the provision is not necessary.
  I find that argument even less impressive because the information so obtained is less than 100 per cent, reliable. The information depends on good will, upon whom one finds on the phone, and how he or she feels that day. It depends upon one's opponents telling one something and the good will of third parties. We do not believe that that is sufficient. We want full disclosure; we want it by law; we want it by right. I do not find such an argument conclusive.
  If we press the argument, the Minister and his allies fall back on what I call the reply realistic. We are told that there may be something in what we say but that we are just creating a bureaucratic maze; that in the real world the Government know, their friends in the insurance industry having told them, that third parties come to these agreements, and have done so by the thousand, based upon ignorance; that people like ignorance and are used to ignorance; that they really do not want to know; and that if we give them this information we shall only make trouble because they will insist on their day in court and that they are better off ignorant.
  The answer is that the Government cannot conceivably know that. That is the system we have at present; there is no other system. The poor plaintiff, the poor victim, has to proceed by ignorance. We do not know what they would do if they were offered the option of knowledge. Knowledge may be power. That may be why it is not so popular. But that is why I beg to move the amendment.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to confirm the recollection of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. I am happy to see in the Chamber not only the noble Earl but also the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. That is what is called belt and braces—otherwise known as insurance.
  In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I am extremely happy to support Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. Ministers are familiar—some would say over familiar—with the concept of the wrecking amendment. As I see it, this is a saving amendment. I have said from Second Reading onwards that I strongly support the principle of the Bill and want to see it working. It is my opinion, and my judgment as far as I can form it, that without the amendment the Bill simply cannot operate. I argue here simply in terms of practicalities and of the real world.
  The amendment deals only with out-of-court settlements. When people obtain an out-of-court settlement, they should know under which heads they receive the damages. They should know under which heads they are able to recoup. Unless they know that,
  632
  they simply cannot know how much they are receiving. It is like getting paid a sum and not knowing whether it is gross or net. It is a material point.
  The Minister seems to think that it is possible to exclude the effect of recoupment from the operation of settlements. When we considered the Bill on Report, he said:
  "The effect of either of the amendments would be to allow benefit recovery to affect the settlement process to an unacceptable degree".—[Official Report, 14/1/97; col. 134.]
  I simply do not understand the Minister's position. I do not understand how he imagines that a change of this magnitude can come into operation without affecting the progress of settlements any more than I understand how he thinks that it cannot affect the progress of the Bill if we debate it in the dinner hour rather than at three o'clock in the afternoon. If one changes the circumstances one changes what happens.
  It is not in issue—I hope that the Minister will not detain us arguing the point—that we want settlements to take place out of court wherever possible. It is not in issue that we do not want cases to drag on, building up a greater amount of benefit to be recouped. That is common ground between all parties. The point at issue is which way this desirable effect is to be obtained. But arguments about which way are not always without heat. As anyone knows who has seen a married couple arguing over a map in a car, that sort of argument can become very heated indeed. However, I hope that this one will not.
  The Minister attempted to argue that the difficulty arises entirely because we are listening to different sets of advisers. It is true; we are. My advisers are telling me what I thought before they advised me—what indeed I have thought ever since we went through this business in 1989.1 believe I am the only surviving veteran of the battles on the 1989 Bill. That said, it ought to be possible for advisers on both sides to reach an "out-of-court" settlement in Parliament as it is in the law. So I hope that this will not be the end of dialogue.
  The question is: how do we set about it? The case that is argued by the Association of British Insurers, and by the Minister, is that if a breakdown of heads is needed in regard to a damages settlement, that is just one more matter about which the parties may argue. So far as it goes, that point is true: it is one more matter about which the parties may need to argue, and may therefore take a little time. It seems sensible to concede that at the outset. However, let us consider the alternative; namely, that the claimant simply does not know what he will receive unless he goes to court and has the whole thing out in public.
  In those circumstances, I simply cannot see that it is in the interest of the claimant, or that of his solicitor, to settle the case at all. It takes two to settle, as Ministers in both Houses learn every day. If it is never in the interest of the claimant to settle, I do not see how the insurer can get a quick settlement.
  If there are to be quick settlements, then the Minister's case must be one of two: either the claimants will settle against their own interest, or the superior

  633
  power will in practice prevail. I find the one unimaginable and the other unacceptable. I am rather interested to know which of those the Minister means.
  If the ABI loses this argument, it is not very much more work to disclose the figure, which must form part of its own calculations; it cannot make the calculations without it. So disclosure will not be particularly difficult. The claimant may object, but if there is a desire to settle, as I believe there often is, it should not be beyond the wit of man to find in the lawyers' equivalent of the Prince's Chamber some way of reaching agreement.
  This is the point at which there is a tendency to say that "it is very difficult". It is an old argument. In a lighter moment over Christmas I happened to read some remarkable things that have been said in this House and elsewhere. Some included the great difficulties foreseen in this Chamber in the 1920s in relation to the introduction of a scheme of compulsory motor insurance. The late Lord Ullswater, who I understand was the great grandfather of the present Viscount, said:
  "I can understand a proposal that no motor should be insured against third party risk. That, I think, is an arguable case, because then every person driving would take special care not to inflict damage to life or limb … but I can also understand the frame of mind of a man who … says, 'Well, I am insured against all risks; it does not matter,' and he will go ahead for all he is worth and as likely as not will cause an accident".
  At the end of that series of debates the Minister commented:
  "To carry out a general scheme of insurance would involve great difficulties. I do not believe it will be possible to come to an agreement with the insurance companies".
  That Minister overrated the difficulties. I believe that the present Minister does the same.
  8 p.m.
  Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am regarded as the belt or the braces. However, I do not think that the entire insurance industry (all two of us!) is particularly arguing for the insurance industry. In terms of the various points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I should like to try a fourth and, I hope, factual reply. The amendments proposed are damaging for all parties, certainly in terms of time, whatever that is worth. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for agreeing that point.
  It seems quite clear that the one area of compensation which is not ring-fenced, and against which the Government can recover benefits, is loss of earnings. That must be agreed all round. Even this morning I received a copy of the TUC's booklet, Robbing the Victims—no excuse for delay. The answer is exactly the same; namely, that the Bill will mean,
  "special damages (awarded to injury victims for loss, such as loss of income or the costs of future care)".
  So we now know that clawback can be operated against loss of earnings. Loss of earnings is finite. At the time a claim is agreed, the actual loss of earnings that has been incurred will be known. It is finite; there is no problem with it. In terms of what is being said on the other side of the House, it is a head of damages and
  634
  the finite amount is known. If the amount that has been paid out in benefits to the claimant is below that—and, after all, the amount paid out is known—that is the end of the matter. Everybody knows exactly where they stand. If the amount is above it—there may perhaps be some part of the total claim that includes a potential future loss of earnings after the date of settlement of a claim—then it seems very clear that Clause 6(1) of the Bill is invoked and the compensator pays the excess.
  My representation is that the insurance industry has given in all round and has agreed all these points. If the compensator pays the excess, there is no need to identify the other heads of claim. The only reason why it seems to me to make sense for all parties not to spend time on it is precisely that it does waste time. Time is money, and lawyers will receive more money.
  The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I must catch a train at half past eight as I have an important engagement in the country tomorrow morning and this is my last opportunity to get there. My point is simply that the solicitor is the person involved in this activity who knows exactly what is going on and can explain quite clearly to the claimant exactly which item represents what. If the solicitor cannot do that, it will certainly be extremely difficult for anyone else to do so.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he agree that some solicitors are more solicitous than others?
  The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, indeed. With that, I hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have returned to a topic that we discussed at length both in Committee and on Report. I am afraid that, as I indicated towards the end of the Report stage, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between the Government and noble Lords opposite on this matter, although, I am happy to say, not on the rest of the Bill.
  The disagreement may in part stem from a muddying of two distinct issues. The first is whether offers of compensation need to be broken down into their constituent parts. The second is whether offers of compensation will be made gross or net of benefit recovery under the reformed scheme.
  Some noble Lords seem to be under a misapprehension that the former is necessary because, as they believe, offers of compensation will be made gross. Indeed, I thought the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, went even further in his remarks. He seemed to think that it would require "nods and winks" to find out what the recoverable benefits were. I cannot understand that at all. The victim receives a copy of the certificate of total benefits. That seems to have little to do with the statement of reduction. Clause 4 makes matters perfectly clear in relation to the certificate of recoverable benefits. I hope that that misunderstanding has been laid to rest.

  635
  The noble Earl suggested today, and previously, that until a person knows what sum he or she is being offered, and what heads it comes under, the calculation as to how much will be received simply cannot be made. I believe that was the substance of his remarks. However, that is not the case if the sum you are offered is already net of compensation recovery and the offer made to you is the amount of money you will receive. That is what the organisation representing those who will make the offer, the Association of British Insurers, assures us will be the case. That point has been made three times now by my noble friend Lord Chelmsford and was made again this evening.
  Noble Lords opposite seem to be sceptical about that; but they have not explained what the advantages would be to insurers of making a gross offer of compensation and refusing to explain its value to the victim. It has been suggested that victims will refuse to settle on the basis of a gross offer whose value is unknown to them. Quite so. It would indeed be foolish to accept an offer whose value was unclear. There is no suggestion that victims could be forced to accept an offer where the benefit recovery position was unknown. It will usually be known because of the certificate which will have been asked for and copied. If that has not happened, it would be unwise of the victim to accept a gross settlement; he will look for a net one. I believe that is common sense.
  I think it is unlikely that under the reformed scheme insurers will wish to delay settlements. They will have the responsibility to repay benefits and the benefit bill will continue to accumulate up to the point of settlement; the clock will keep on ticking. Why would they bother to make an offer which was not clear and which therefore prevented assessment of its net value? Why should they attempt to make the whole thing a bit of a mystery? The insurer will be equally keen to know the cost of the offer to himself when he makes it. He cannot do that without identifying the amount he will have to pay the victim in addition to the amount he will have to repay to the compensation recovery unit. I cannot for the life of me understand what advantage there would be to the insurers in making an offer where the total bill was unclear. That would seem a very imprudent way for an insurer to conduct himself.
  If there is a misunderstanding here, it may well surround the question of gross or net. As I have said, the evidence we have and the experience of how this works—and logic tells me how it will work—show that the insurers will offer net. They will know what the recoverable benefits are and what the total cost will be to them and will say to whoever it is, "We are prepared to offer £X thousand to you in your pocket". If they say "£X thousand" and leave it a mystery as to whether that is in his pocket or whether recoverable benefit has to be taken off, I would have thought that that would delay settlement. It is unrealistic to think that the matter will proceed in that way. I think it is net and clear and that that will expedite settlement in the interests of everybody.
  636
  The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, emphasised again that:
  "It is not right … if one of the parties to a dispute … has more access to information … than the other party".
  I think I probably agree with him. I cannot understand, in that case, how he thinks it fair for insurers to be required to give the victims full information about the way in which they have calculated an offer but not the other way round when it comes to the way in which the victim has calculated what he believes the offer ought to be. That sounds very much like one party having more and fuller information than the other. Both sides have full knowledge of the benefits bill (from the certificate of total benefits) and of the offer that is on the table. I have suggested that both sides will clearly understand whether it is net or gross. What each side does not know is the calculation that has been made to arrive at that. But, as I have made clear in earlier debates on this issue, I do not believe that settlement will be dependent on this information any more than it is now.
  The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that it was,
  "not right that the victim should not have access to the information if they want it"
  and that,
  "victims' solicitors need to know the breakdown so that they can advise their clients what to do".
  I would have thought that people were just interested in the total amount of money that they were going to get and not so much in how it was broken down. However, that is the advice which the noble Lord has received from an organisation representing victims' solicitors, and I understand that. If that is the case, perhaps he could ask how it is that they manage to advise their clients in cases where no benefit is involved. There is no requirement in such cases—
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I am answering his case. He is the one who said—and if we had Hansard here we could show it—over and over again that all people want is the quantum. That is his argument, not my argument.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am just reinforcing that argument. I think that people want to know what they will receive net, and that is what I think will happen. Frankly, I do not understand the noble Lord's intervention at all. He seems to be agreeing with me.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, it would materially assist the House if the Minister could explain how the victims will know how much they will receive when they do not know into what heads it is broken down.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, they know how much they will receive because they will be offered it: they will be offered £X thousand and, when the solicitor says, "Does that include the recovery of benefit?", the compensator will say, "No, it does not;

  637
  I will deal with the recovery of benefit myself; I will pick that up. Your client will get £X thousand". Perhaps I am just too stupid to understand this argument, but it seems to me a perfectly understandable position.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I understand that the Minister believes that settlements will work this way. Can he tell us why he believes it?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe it because that is the way many of them have worked to date. That is the advice that we are given by the Association of British Insurers, who operate this system, and that is how they see the system operating currently, where 90 per cent, of the claims are settled out of court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has underlined that point. That is the evidence on which I base my view. It is also a common sense point of view. That is actually what somebody will be interested in.
  I was raising the question of those cases in which no benefit is involved. It seems to me that there is no requirement in the kinds of cases we are talking about for the insurer to break down the offer he has made. I think the Opposition accept that the usual practice at present is to make an offer of a global sum by way of settlement of the claim. How do solicitors tell whether or not these claims are fair and reasonable? The solicitor in such a case will know little, if anything, about the calculation which underlies the offer made by the compensator. Yet the noble Lord has been told that this information is vital for a solicitor to advise a client as to whether to accept an offer of compensation. Frankly, I do not believe that at all. If that is the case, the implication is that, once a solicitor is presented with a claim where benefits are an additional factor, his knowledge, experience and judgment will desert him and the claim will have to be stalled. That cannot be right. The victim's advisers will make their own estimate of the value of the claim and assess any offer in the light of that estimate in the normal way.
  It has been suggested that it would be easier for the negotiating parties to agree on several figures making up a total offer of compensation than on a single figure. I have to say that that seems very unlikely. Even in the mildly adversarial climate—let alone a major adversarial climate—in which negotiations are conducted, that is more likely to lead to greater scope for argument, with cases progressing to court, and I do not think that anybody wants that.
  Amendment No. 1 would limit the requirement to provide a statement of reduction in compensation to cases where recoverable benefits exceeded a limit to be prescribed by regulation. I am always flattered when I am encouraged to take regulation-making powers. This is an interesting variation on the Opposition's theme. It seems that they are offering us an implicit acknowledgment that statements of reduction would mean an onerous and bureaucratic task for the compensator and therefore they want it de minimis.
  Of course, the amendment would still mean that a statement of reduction in compensation would be required in a high-value case. I am advised that
  638
  high-value cases are the ones that tend to include a claim for compensation under a multiplicity of different heads. Unsurprisingly, they also tend to be fought the hardest and are the category of case most likely to end in a court hearing. If there were a requirement to spell out the heads of compensation in such cases, there would be even less chance of reaching an informal settlement. I am therefore unattracted by this aspect of Amendment No. 1.
  Under the reformed benefit recovery scheme, the liability to repay benefits is separate and distinct from the liability to pay compensation. I have tried to make the distinction between net and gross and I will try this different way: separate and distinct. Although the compensator is required to apply for a certificate of recoverable benefits, he does not have to have received it before making a compensation payment. That frees the negotiating parties to agree an early settlement, without unnecessary interference from the department. Under the first amendment the compensator might discover, after offering or even paying an award, that the amount on the certificate of recoverable benefits exceeded the limit. He would then have to back-calculate, using the net amount he had paid to the victim and the amounts of various recoverable benefits, what compensation would have been payable under each head before reduction. He would have to do this despite the fact that the victim had already received compensation and irrespective of the fact that the gross figures could be calculated in several different ways. In short, the compensator would be obliged to pursue a pointless paper-chase and incur additional administrative expense to invent a breakdown by heads of damage which would be of no interest to the victim, who had already settled.
  In summary, a number of arguments have been made in support of these amendments. None has convinced me. None has convinced me that it would improve the Bill in any way.
  In some ways there is a degree of opportunism from certain people who would like to go down that route, cloaked in an argument about legal principle. I think that the argument is essentially bogus. The Bill is not about making life easier for personal injury lawyers or indeed making it more lucrative. It is in fact about trying to ensure that as many settlements as possible are entered into out of court as quickly as possible for the benefit of the victim; and, overall, of course, that in the kind of cases that we are discussing the victim knows exactly, as will the compensator, what the recovery for benefit will be and what sum of money he will receive.
  That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way to think that the legislation will work. I hope, if the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, put their amendments to your Lordships, that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
  Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thought that the Minister was giving me the reply bland; but towards the end, I thought that he was giving me the reply rude. I shall not go over the argument again. When the Bill goes to another place, it will read what we have said and will see what we have tried to suggest and the

  639
  Minister will not accept. We are saying that there will be disputes. There will be disputes on the example taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, from the opposite Benches. There will be disputes about loss of earnings, the rate of pay and whether the pay increases should be admitted. There will be arguments about all aspects of pay and what should be allowed. There will be disputes about the other heads: care and mobility. Unless the victim has all the facts and has them as a legal entitlement, he cannot be certain that he is getting a fair crack of the whip.
  The issue is how much of the settlement will be offset by the insurer's demands set against each head. The victim wants to know what they are. He wants to know, and has no way of knowing or of ensuring that they are fair, that there is not overload and that the insurer is not loading unreasonably the kind of excess that the compensator should pay and not the victim. There is no way that that can be done unless there is 100 per cent. disclosure. I give way to the noble Viscount.
  Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind. It should not be forgotten that the insurance industry has already agreed to a whole host of provisions in this Bill which—it depends whose estimate is taken—will cost them between £50 million and £70 million a year. It has already been agreed that that will be absorbed by the insurance industry. I slightly object to the suggestion that the insurance industry is trying to load things against the claimant.
  Lord McCarthy: My Lords, one cannot possibly know. I do not say that the noble Viscount's company would do this or that everybody or anybody would do it. I simply say that unless this amendment is carried—or an amendment like this amendment is carried in another place—justice, fairness and equity cannot be seen to be done. In that context, I am afraid that I shall have to divide the House.
  8.23 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 101.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Blease, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Calverley, L.

  Judd, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  McCarthy, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Carter, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clancarty, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Morris of Castle Monis, L. [Teller.]

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Desai, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Dubs, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  640

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Hemphill, L.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Henley, L.

  Annaly, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Beloff, L.

  Howe, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Lindsay, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Long, V.

  Bowness, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Luke, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Burton L,

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Byford B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Montrose, D.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Mottistone, L.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Nickson, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Courtown, E.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Onslow, E

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Oxfuird, V.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  De Ramsey, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Peel, E.

  Demon of Wakefield, B.

  Rankeillour L

  Downshire, M.

  Rennell, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Renton, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Elton, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Gage, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

  Goschen, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Hacking, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Haddington, E.

  Wilcox, B.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  8.31 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  An amendment (privilege) made.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Before we complete the passage of this Bill, I should like to place on record my gratitude for the valuable contributions made by your Lordships and for the support that this Bill has received. As I have already noted and as other noble Lords have said, it is refreshing to deal with a Bill where all sides of the House can achieve consensus in so many areas, despite the Division we have just had. Indeed, at the Second

  641
  Reading, as your Lordships may recall, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the hat trick of welcome which the Bill received from all sides of the Chamber.
  Of course, we have not managed to agree on every point. Matters have arisen on which we have strong differences of opinion. However, I do not believe that these differences ought to be allowed to obscure our agreement. I am particularly grateful for the contributions made by those who perhaps I may describe as the regulars on this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, agreed with me on more occasions than either of us probably thought was good for our reputations. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, as always, brought to these matters her practical experience; and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was characteristically assiduous and punchy. These amendments, I hope, have enabled us to clarify several important points. My noble friends Lord Chelmsford and Lord Clanwilliam made valuable interventions from the perspective of the insurance industry. I am grateful for their assistance, as it has been vital for us to appreciate what actually happens on the ground in what is a fairly specialist area.
  Finally, in relation to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, once again I have been struck by his grasp of the detail of what is a highly technical, involved subject. I am grateful to him for the contribution he has made, and as usual he has kept me on my toes with regard to the regulation-making powers. I was not entirely sure whether his suggestion that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was clothed in the robes of Cambyses, the King of Persia, was flattering or not, so I did some checking and I discovered that King Cambyses had what might be described as a pretty bad press—and deservedly so. Occasionally, we at social security feel that we get a bad press, but we do not deserve it. I have to say to the noble Earl that he is being very unkind to my right honourable friend. As far as the law is concerned, which really was his point, King Cambyses managed to get the judges to say that he could break the law of incest and marry his sister, so it was not quite the same as the point that the noble Earl was making.
  Leaving that aside, I wish to thank those organisations and individuals who responded so positively to our consultation process. I pay particular tribute to the Law Society, the Association of British Insurers, the Clydeside Action on Asbestos and, of course, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, who have followed our deliberations with exemplary thoroughness.
  Finally, I must not overlook the important part played by the TUC in seeking to find common ground between those consulted on the shape of the proposed scheme. As my noble friend Lord Chelmsford pointed out, all of us received a letter today urging us, if I may shorten what the letter said, to get on with the job here.
  It is gratifying to be involved in a Bill which has received such a broad measure of support across the Floor of the House and outside. This is such a Bill. There are one or two areas where real disagreement remains. Those issues will have to be discussed again in the other place.
  642
  We are all agreed that this benefit recovery scheme should achieve two very valuable objectives. It will enable victims to retain their damages for pain and suffering; it will also protect the taxpayer from the phenomenon known as double compensation. As such, I am confident that the Bill will be widely welcomed and will prove to be very useful for all the parties concerned in what sometimes are very difficult and painful decisions. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the House will have noted, we went out on a high note, which was defeat, but if that has added to the good humour of the Minister on which we have come to rely, then it has its positive virtues.
  We are delighted to join with the Minister in sending the Bill on its way to the Commons. It is a good Bill. It has been improved at the edges by amendments from all round the House and clarified by the Minister's unfailing assiduous attention to the questions put to him on amendments at other points in the Bill. It means, as the Minister said, that rightly and belatedly payments to victims for compensation for their injury, pain, distress and additional costs will now be ring-fenced from the recovery of benefits. Justice will be done, and that is highly desirable.
  Like others, I wish to thank in particular my own noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for his wit and style and effectiveness, my noble friend Baroness Turner for her expertise, on which we all rely. I should also like to thank our advisers, in particular Mr. Dismore, from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, and the TUC. As the Minister has said, we wish this Bill all speed in the Commons.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I really must reassure the Minister and make my apologies to the Secretary of State for careless use of language. It was not the Secretary of State I was comparing to Cambyses, the King of Persia, it was his clause. I am free to reproach a clause within the limits of free speech in Parliament as much as I like.
  I agree of course with all the praise of this Bill that has been uttered. I wish it well. I hope it passes speedily through another place and reaches the statute book before other events intervene. It does put right what I thought was a very bad mistake that was made on the very first Bill on which I ever spoke from the Front Bench. I said then that I thought this could not last. I am delighted to have been proved right.
  I should like to join in the thanks to all the others who have been involved in the Bill, to the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, and to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, who have brought a great deal of interest to our deliberations and given us a much more all-round discussion than we could have had otherwise. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. We first spoke on the same side in a debate 42 years ago, I believe. We are still doing it, I am glad to say and I expect us to keep it up, for the time being anyway. I extend thanks to the

  643
  noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She and I have been through many battles together. This is one more. We have done a few good things in this, although, as always, we can tell stories about the fish that got away.
  I should like to thank our advisers from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Andrew Dismore and Rachel Oliver, who have been extremely helpful, thorough and patient and able to explain very technical matters in very clear language. But most of all I should like to thank the Minister for his exemplary patience, endurance, and wit and for his ability to come back on anything. He is known to certain people on his own Back Benches, so good is his defence, after the memorable Australian stonewaller, "Slasher Mackay". I was talking recently to my dentist. I discovered that he used to play grade cricket in Sydney. He used to bowl at Slasher Mackay. I asked him what was the way to get Slasher Mackay out. My dentist replied, after some thought, "hand grenades!".
  I have no remedy so drastic available to me so the Minister survives yet another Division. If I have sharpened his wits, he has sharpened mine. I have thought of yet more ways of placing spin, but always his bat seems to be there. I shall keep at it. I have enjoyed our exchanges and I look forward to the next one.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  8.41 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
  Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
  REGISTER OF HOLDERS OF SHOT GUN AND FIREARM CERTIFICATES
  ("—(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons to whom a shot gun or firearm certificate has been issued.
  (2) The register shall—

  (a) record the National Insurance number of the person to whom the certificate is issued; and

  (b) provide access on-line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the National Police Computer including, for those persons convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities.

  (3) The Secretary of State may direct that those persons who apply for a shot gun or firearm certificate before they are eligible to be issued with a National Insurance number shall be issued with such a number for the purposes of subsection (2).").
  The noble Lord said: I shall not move the amendment but I wish to give notice that I shall retable it at Report.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Clause 34 [Power of search with warrant]:
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 17, line 42, leave out ("a") and insert ("an immediate").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68. Yesterday this House voted overwhelmingly for civil
  644
  liberties. This evening, albeit in a very much more minor way, it has the chance to do the same, although I hope and trust that no Division will be needed.
  I ask the Committee to consider how draconian and sweeping the powers given by Clause 34 are. It gives a constable or a civilian officer the right to enter someone's house at any time—at four o'clock in the morning, if they choose—if necessary by force, and to search the premises and every person found there—the householder, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his aged parents, and anyone who happens to be staying at the time—and to seize not only firearms, which most Members of the Committee would consider reasonable enough, but imitation firearms, any firearm certificate or even shotgun certificate, and any other document authorising the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale or transfer of any firearms or ammunition. Such draconian powers can no doubt be justified where the danger is immediate, but not, I submit, where the danger is long-term. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a difference between what is proposed in the Bill and the civil liberties we debated yesterday. There we were concerned with the fact that the police had power to authorise themselves to engage in intrusive surveillance of people's homes. Here, it is, as with most search warrants, a warrant signed by a justice of the peace or the equivalent in Scotland. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is wrong, but it is not quite the same kind of issue about civil liberties.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his contribution, which has made the first point I seek to make. It is not that the police, at their own hand, can act. They require a duly applied for and granted warrant, as both Clause 46(1) and (2) make clear.
  The noble Lord's amendments would seek to restrict such warrants to a situation where there is reason to suspect an immediate danger. I believe that this would be too limited a provision. There may be occasions where, by obtaining a warrant and removing firearms, the police are able to prevent an incident from occurring. If the police had to demonstrate to the justice of the peace or the sheriff that the danger is immediate they might be unable to do so and thus be unable to prevent a tragedy occurring. It is very difficult to define what is an immediate as opposed to a non immediate danger. It is a question of semantics, of which the Committee would do well to steer clear. The individual's interests will be perfectly well safeguarded. The police will have to give sufficient information on oath to the justice of the peace or sheriff to convince him that a warrant is justified. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 67.
  Lord Monson: First, the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, is entirely correct. The wrong that I am seeking to right is not at all in the same league as the wrong that was righted yesterday. I never pretended that it was. Nevertheless, I still submit that it is unjustifiable to give the police or civilian officers the power to raid people's

  645
  houses at three or four o'clock in the morning and search infant children for imitation weapons unless the danger happens to be immediate.
  I acknowledge the Minister's contention that there are grey areas here. I suppose that if the law is applied with a light hand, so to speak, and the kind of situation I have described where people are raided in the small hours of the morning happens only where it is genuinely justified, one could perhaps accept the Bill as it is. On the assumption—I hope my optimism is justified—that the law will not be applied in a heavy-handed manner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 69:
  After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
  SPOT CHECKS FOR STORAGE OF LICENSED FIREARMS
  ("The chief officer of police for the area in which the holder of a firearm certificate resides may authorise random spot checks to take place as to the satisfaction of the conditions of storage contained in the certificate.").
  The noble Earl said: This amendment has the merits of ensuring that licensed weapons of all types are kept in the secure storage cabinets that the owners have to provide. This secure storage is an integral part of the weapon licensing system. The acceptance of the amendment would render all firearms holders liable to impromptu visits by the police for the inspection of their weapon storage arrangements. These spot checks would not require warrants as they would be no more than unannounced visits, with the normal courtesies observed.
  The amendment was suggested to me on the grounds that some weapon owners, especially in the countryside, keep their weapons to hand and in their living quarters and not in the approved cabinets. The risk of accident thereby increases. The current arrangements for visiting by appointment clearly lead only to a guarantee that the weapons are being stored properly for the duration of the planned visit. The acceptance of this amendment will create a climate in which weapon owners and their storage arrangements were liable to inspection at any time thereby improving the prospects for domestic and public safety. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Without the assistance on this occasion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I oppose this amendment. I consider that it would represent a quite unwarranted extension of police powers to enter a person's home without achieving any significant addition to public safety. If all that is intended is that the police should turn up unannounced at a house and ask permission to carry out a check, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, but the amendment carries with it the implication that, irrespective of consent, a random check should be carried out. That is why the amendment, as tabled, is objectionable.
  646
  If the police have reason to suspect that a certificate holder may be breaching the conditions for secure storage which are part of his licence—for example, if they receive reports from neighbours or visitors that guns are being left lying around in the house—there is power to act under Section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968, which was discussed with the last amendment.
  As I have indicated, this amendment would entitle the officers to act without warrant. In our view it is unjustified, and in those circumstances I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: On hearing the noble and learned Lord's response to that, I agree with him that the amendment is more unpleasant than I had intended it to be. In that case, I am extremely keen to withdraw it. There is a requirement to meet the needs that I mentioned earlier. We need some device to make certain that weapons are stored in the correct cabinets. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Approved rifle clubs]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
  Page 19, line 28, leave out ("in, or").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendments tabled in my name are Amendments No. 71, 86, 89, 91, 93 and 94. They are grouped with Amendment No. 89 which will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Balfour.
  These are technical amendments which bring existing references in the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 into line with the equivalent terms in this Bill. The existing legislation uses the term, "in, or in connection with" when speaking of certain activities. The effect of the amendment is to replace that with the simpler term
  "in connection with"
  when speaking of certain activities. The effect of the amendment is to replace that with the simpler term "in connection with" which already occurs in Clauses 3, 4 and 26.
  The others are minor amendments which change the corresponding references in the previous legislation. There are no policy implications from these amendments and I hope that the Committee will accept them. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: As my amendment is grouped with these amendments, I believe it appropriate to speak to it now. On page 1 of the Bill, Clause 1(3), in their wisdom the Government propose that for the word "rifle" there shall be substituted the words "rifled gun". Therefore, I am suggesting to the Committee that in the interpretation section, Section 57, that for the word "rifle" we substitute the words,
  "'rifled gun' includes "carbine'".
  I shall move that amendment when we come to it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
  MUSEUMS ELIGIBLE FOR A MUSEUMS FIREARM LICENCE
  ("In the Schedule to the 1988 Act (firearms and ammunition in museums to which the Schedule applies)—

  (a) the existing provisions of paragraph 5 shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph;

  (b) after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

  "(2) This Schedule also applies to any museum or similar institution in Great Britain which is of a description specified in an order made for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by the Secretary of State and whose collection includes or is to include firearms.
  (3) An order under sub-paragraph (2) above may specify any description of museum or similar institution which appears to the Secretary of State to have as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation for the public benefit of a collection of historical, artistic or scientific interest.
  (4) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.").
  The noble Baroness said: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave a commitment to table an amendment on museums during the debate at Second Reading in another place on 12th November (at col. 186 of Hansard). The new clause in my name will extend the scope of the power to grant a museum firearms licence under the Schedule to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Museum firearms licences are currently only issued to museums which satisfy certain criteria and are maintained wholly or mainly out of money provided by Parliament or by a local authority.
  The new clause will give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the power to designate other museums and institutions which satisfy the same criteria but are not funded out of money provided by Parliament or by a local authority. In practice this is likely to be by reference to such bodies if they are currently registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission. It will mean that it will be possible for these museums, which include many regimental museums, to apply for a museum firearms licence allowing them to continue to keep handguns in their collections after these become generally prohibited, without the need for a separate authority from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: In Clause 17 of the Bill, the duration of a licence for clubs is now six years. In the Schedule to the 1988 Act, paragraph 5, the period is stated as five years. I wonder whether between now and Report stage my noble friend the Minister will consider that it should be changed to six years.
  Baroness Blatch: I can give my noble friend an assurance that I shall think about that between now and Report stage.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 74:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
  ("At the end of section 8(1) of the 1968 Act (authorised dealing in firearms) there is added "in any part of the United Kingdom, whether or not on specified premises".").
  The noble Earl said: Section 8 of the Firearms Act 1968 kindly provides that,
  "A person carrying on the business of a firearms dealer and registered as such under this Act, or a [servant] of such a person may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of that business".
  In the ordinary course of business a firearms dealer will be in possession of firearms at his place of business and must also be in possession of them when transporting them; for example, to or from a client, when having repaired a firearm or otherwise testing it and so on. At all times the relevant conditions relating to security apply and this provision, which has existed since 1920, has caused no known difficulties of enforcement or security. If a dealer establishes a new place of business he must notify the police under Section 37 of the 1968 Act.
  However, a conviction was obtained in R v. Evans when a dealer agreed the sale of a firearm to a client and delivered it to him at Bisley during a shooting competition. It was held by the Crown Court that since Bisley was not the dealer's registered place of business he was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. The situation created by that case has raised a great deal of uncertainty among the trade and those who have to administer the Act. Extensive correspondence between representatives of the gun trade and the Home Office over a period of years has failed to resolve this uncertainty about the meaning of Section 8. This amendment is designed to make the situation clear and to permit proper transactions in the ordinary course of a dealer's business subject to the very extensive restrictions which already exist. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  The Earl of Balfour: I find this amendment rather complicated. Although I have great sympathy for what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Peel, the 1968 Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Had my noble friend used the words "any part of Great Britain", I would have been happy to support the amendment. However, I do not believe that I can support it if it applies to the United Kingdom because of the extant clause in the 1968 Act.
  Lord Kimball: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel. The amendment clears up a genuine mistake which has resulted in considerable unhappiness. More and more people will want to purchase firearms and take them to a range to try them out. That was exactly what happened in the unfortunate case involving Bisley. Of course, Bisley was the property of the National Rifle Association and it was not the dealer's property. But there is

  649
  every reason to agree that within a 72-hour period a firearms dealer should be empowered to take a weapon to a place where the purchaser can try it out.
  Earl Attlee: Having glanced through Section 8, I am surprised that there is a problem. However, I accept that a problem exists. Another problem may occur. If the holder of a firearms certificate dies, his wife or children may want to call in a gunsmith or firearms dealer to take away the weapon for safe keeping. Presumably he will fall foul of the provisions of Section 8 as currently proposed. The amendment of the noble Earl will also cover that. I believe that the amendment is very helpful, and I support it.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The practical difficulties that lie behind Amendment No. 74 arise not only out of the case to which my noble friends have referred but another case which has come to the attention of the Government. The Government fully accept that there is a problem that requires to be addressed. It may assist if I remind the Committee that Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1968 requires that a firearms dealer must be registered with the police. Reference has already been made to Section 8 of the Act under the terms of which a firearms dealer who has been registered may possess firearms and ammunition without holding a police firearms certificate that would usually be needed for them as long as he has them in the ordinary course of his business.
  The next sections to which I refer are the important ones. Sections 33 and 37 of the 1968 Act require every registered dealer to ensure that all of his places of business are also registered with the police. As the case referred to in the discussion makes clear, a dealer may quite legitimately want to convey a firearm from one place to another. While the Government have sympathy with the reasons that lie behind the present amendment, they believe that it would pose two major difficulties. The first is that in the amendment reference is made to "specified premises". For the technical reason I have referred to, these should be registered premises under Sections 33 and 37. Secondly—and perhaps more importantly—the amendment would contradict the requirement that all places of business be registered with the police. What is required here—which both the amendment and the current legislation lack—is a full definition of the place of business that should be registered with the police.
  The criminal case of which I am aware involved a dealer storing firearms in a barn which was not registered with the police. That makes it clear that it is wrong to assume that the places that should be registered are only those at which a dealer carries on business, in the sense of dealing with members of the public. Other premises may be required to be covered as well. That is one aspect of the practical problem that a change in the law will require to address.
  I assure the Committee that, in the light of this amendment and the cases to which reference has been made, the Government will give further thought to this matter. I hope that it will prove possible to table a
  650
  suitably comprehensive amendment at a later stage of the proceedings on this Bill. If that does not prove possible, legislation in a separate Bill will be brought forward as soon as that can be done. There has been some discussion with the Gun Trade Association. I undertake that such discussions will continue not only with that association but others with a legitimate interest, including of course the police. I hope that, having recognised the problem, it is possible for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for having acknowledged the existence of this difficulty. Both he and I have identified this as a matter which causes great difficulty in the trade. My noble friend has said that he will go away and think about it, for which I am grateful. On the grounds that we will come back to it and sort it out at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 75:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
  FIREARMS APPEALS TRIBUNAL
  ("—(1) The Secretary of State shall make rules for the establishment of a Firearms Appeals Tribunal to consider appeals from persons aggrieved by the decision of a chief officer of police under powers granted to him by the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1996.
  (2) Evidence submitted to the Tribunal may at the discretion of the Tribunal be in writing only.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall consult the Firearms Consultative Committee in choosing the membership of the Tribunal.
  (4) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make rules governing the membership of the Tribunal and the conduct of its proceedings.
  (5) The right of appeal created by section 44(1) of the 1968 Act is not affected by this section.
  (6) In the event of an appeal under section 44(1) of the 1968 Act, the decision of the Tribunal shall be conclusive evidence of the facts which it contains and the Court shall be entitled to take account of the Tribunal's finding in making its own decision.").
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 75. The effect of the amendment is to establish a firearms appeals tribunal. I believe this to be a very important amendment. It is a recommendation of the FCC which is supported by the vast majority of people connected with the shooting community.
  At present on the revocation of a certificate or licence, or the refusal of a chief officer of police to grant such an authority, the aggrieved party's only recourse to appeal is through the courts. It is time-consuming, slow and prohibitively expensive. If established, such an appeals tribunal would take a further look at the reasons for the revocation or refusal in an independent light. The information would be considered on a confidential basis. The tribunal would then further advise the chief officer of police of its recommendations. Those would not be binding upon the chief officer. Notwithstanding that, both the appellant and the chief officer of police would still have final recourse to the courts.
  Such a tribunal would provide a much cheaper option for the majority of appellants. It would save greatly on court time and therefore cost to Her Majesty's

  651
  Government, the police and the appellant. At present, the latter may have to drop his or her appeal for financial reasons.
  I believe that the establishment of such an appeals tribunal would provide a much more reasonable and fair system than exists at present and would improve the principles of natural justice in this context. I commend the amendment to the Committee and hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
  Lord Kimball: Such a tribunal was one of the main recommendations of the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. It is particularly appropriate that we should consider it now, bearing in mind that one of the worst aspects of the whole Dunblane tragedy was the argument put forward by the Central Scotland Police that it was cheaper to grant Hamilton a renewal of his certificate than to face Hamilton's appeal to the sheriff court. That is a serious situation.
  The tribunal that the FCC in its third annual report had in mind was a tribunal in line with the Employment Protection Act—something that was simple, practical and prompt. I hope that we shall receive a sympathetic reply to this amendment.
  Earl Peel: I, too, support the amendment. I do so for three reasons: one on cost, one on efficiency, and one on fairness. One of the most important parts of the amendment is the fact that the tribunal's decision would not be binding on either party. So it would not impinge on the existing procedure of going to the courts if either party wished to do so. I appreciate that that would always remain an essential part of the proceedings, particularly from the point of view of the police. I understand that point.
  Such a tribunal would surely reduce the number of cases that end up in court. It is very much in line with the present trend. There are other examples where such tribunals are now in operation. I believe that it is the Government's policy to try to encourage them. I found it disturbing to read that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that some police forces impose arbitrary requirements on applicants with,
  "some bordering on the discriminatory without justification".
  I find that worrying.
  The appeals system must be fair. Seeking redress through the courts can be a daunting and expensive procedure, particularly for the applicant. I have no doubt that such a tribunal would help ease the process. I am sure that it would lead to a greater degree of consistency. Everyone who knows anything on the subject feels that that is something that the present system lacks. It would overcome a major criticism that exists at the moment. Finally, the very fact that the FCC is so much in favour of it, and has been recommending it for so long, is a good reason why we should accept the amendment.
  Lord Marlesford: I strongly support the amendment. It is, as I see it, a most important aspect of improving the licensing procedure for firearms. I was especially
  652
  struck by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Kimball because when I was speaking earlier to my Amendment No. 66 for a central computer system for licensing I was somewhat critical of the Home Office. That criticism was, in effect, echoed by my noble friend Lord Kimball when he pointed out that that recommendation had been made a considerable time ago and never implemented and that, as a result of reading Cullen, in the Dunblane case it was possibly because of the uncertain and unsatisfactory procedures for appeal that there was an inhibition in denying that wholly unsuitable man a certificate for the firearms with which he later slaughtered those people.
  I must strongly support what has been put forward. I see it as an essential component of ensuring a much tougher, more accurate and fairer licensing system for firearms.
  Earl Attlee: I support the amendment on the basis that it will not merely make it easier for the police initially to refuse an application; it will improve applicants' confidence that their licensing application will be treated fairly. They will be more confident that their licences will not be refused arbitrarily. The amendment should be accepted.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this subject which relates to appeals in the area of firearm certificates. Lord Cullen recommended in his report that,
  "consideration should be given to the reform of the 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".
  As they did with others, the Government accepted that recommendation and we are currently consulting on what should be done about appeals under the Firearms Act. Following preliminary discussions the Government had with interested parties the Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice in England. The Minister of State for Scotland has written in similar terms to the Lord President of the Court of Session about a consultation paper. That consultation paper has also been circulated to the Bar Council, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society, the Law Society in Scotland, all sheriffs principal, the Sheriffs' Association, the Temporary Sheriffs' Association, the British Shooting Sports Council, the Firearms Consultative Committee and various police staff associations. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library of the House.
  That consultation paper requests comments by 23rd January. One of the questions which the paper addresses and seeks comments upon is whether a tribunal would be a suitable substitute to a right of appeal to the courts. The amendment raises a different but not unconnected question of whether a tribunal should be a supplement to the appeal procedures.
  I believe that until we have the results of the consultation exercise it would be a mistake to reach a concluded view as to the correct way forward in relation to appeals and as to the role which a tribunal may have to play in the area. Clearly, the views which

  653
  all Members of the Committee have expressed in connection with the amendment are cogent arguments in support of having a tribunal as a supplement to the appeals procedure. However, there may be arguments against such a course of action which other consultees will wish to advance.
  I assure the Committee that the Government regard this as a matter of importance because a concluded view must be reached by government and by Parliament before the Bill becomes law. Accordingly, once the consultation period ends on 23rd January, a view will be formed and that will be announced to the House when the Bill reaches its Report stage.
  I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and await the result of a consultation exercise.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining the matter further. I believe that there is a problem. The proposal was brought forward after very serious thought in the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, which is the independent advisory body which, with a panel of experts, advises the Home Secretary. This matter has been running for a long time.
  I am not satisfied that the body is a substitute for the courts. It is a stand-alone body which gives an extra fillip to people who cannot afford to go to the courts. I honestly believe that the Government should look very carefully at the proposal. I am sorry, but I must be difficult and I wish to press the amendment.
  9.16 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 72.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Kimball, L. [Teller.]

  Annaly, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Marlesford, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Biddulph, L.

  Monson, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Brain, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Burton, L.

  Nickson, L.

  Clancarty, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Peel, E.

  Cross, V.

  Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Wharton, B.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Wynford, L.

  654

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Addison, V.

  Hemphill, L.

  Anelay of St. Jonas, B.

  Henley, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Blaker, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Howe, E.

  Bowness, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Byford, B.

  Judd, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Calverley, L.

  Long, V.

  Carlisle, E.

  Lucas, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Luke, L.

  Carter, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  De Ramsey, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Downshire, M.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Renton, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

  Grantchester, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Hacking, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  9.24 p.m.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 76:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
  FORM OF REGISTER OF TRANSACTIONS OF FIREARMS DEALERS
  (" The register of transactions required by section 40 of the 1968 Act to be kept by persons registered as a firearms dealer may be kept by electronic means on a computer or otherwise and the power under section 53 of the 1968 Act for the Secretary of State to make rules prescribing the form of registers to be kept under this section shall be extended to allow the prescribing of the form and manner in which such electronic records shall be maintained.").
  The noble Earl said: This amendment is very simple and very easy, and I am sure that the Government would very much like to support it. In the 1968 Act dealers were enabled to keep their register of firearms and transactions only in longhand. Coming up to the millennium, that seems rather ridiculous when we all use computers. Again, that is a recommendation of the FCC which was accepted by the Government and returned from the Home Secretary with an undertaking that at the first opportunity for primary legislation, that would be dealt with. This is the first opportunity for primary legislation. I believe that the Government ought to stand by their word of the past and accept my amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: I understand that my noble friend will not be moving Amendment No. 79 which is

  655
  grouped with this amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue of the computerisation of firearms dealers' registers in Amendment No. 76. I know that that is an issue on which the Firearms Consultative Committee has made recommendations in the past. We have long recognised the need in principle to bring the law in line with new technology. In the early part of last year we were consulting the police on the matter, but we naturally put the matter to one side when the Dunblane tragedy occurred. We have no difficulty with the principle of the amendment and, of course, the precise implementation is important. The accuracy and security of dealers' registers are key safeguards in preventing guns being sold on to the criminal market.
  I hope that my noble friend is sitting comfortably. I will endeavour to come back on Report, either with proposals as to how computerisation might be achieved by changes in the firearms rules and, if that is not possible, with an amendment to the Bill. I trust that my noble friend will accept that assurance.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: That was the most wonderful statement that I have heard tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 77:
  After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
  ESTABLISHMENT OF FIREARMS CONTROL BOARD
  ("—(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a Firearms Control Board.
  (2) The Firearms Control Board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation of any certificate under Part II of the 1968 Act in respect of a person residing in his area.
  (3) The chief officer of police shall satisfy himself, on the advice of the Firearms Control Board, that applicants for certificates have complied with the requirements necessary for the grant of certificates under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1996.
  (4) The order made under subsection (1) above shall make such provision for the composition of the Board and for its procedures as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary.
  (5) Fees for licences shall be payable to the Board.
  (6) The Secretary of State shall have authority to give instructions to the Board in the exercise of its powers.
  (7) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
  The noble Earl said: I am afraid that this is not quite so short an amendment. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me because the history behind the establishment of a national firearms control board is quite a long one. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to explain some of the background.
  In March 1992, the Home Office issued a consultation document setting forward the proposal to create a civilian body to take over the firearms licensing function from the police service. It was proposed that a non-departmental public body should be set up, to be known as the "Firearms Control Board", which would
  656
  have complete responsibility for the administration of the licensing provisions contained within the firearms Acts.
  The Home Office identified two main areas of concern which arose from the current system. The first was the quality of service provided by the police—a lack of consistency and a lack of expertise by those police personnel who undertook firearms licensing and administrative tasks; and, secondly, value for money. In terms of the lack of expertise, it was pointed out that many police officers who made inquiries were neither skilled in the handling of firearms nor experienced in the use of sporting weapons. That often caused friction between the police and firearms certificate holders; namely, that,
  "experienced shooters are sometimes irritated by inexpert officers and more generally by a system which they perceive to be inefficient and inconsistent".
  In terms of the lack of consistency within the administration of firearms licensing, it was noted that this occurred not only with individual police forces but also between the 51 police forces within the United Kingdom. In terms of value for money, it was further identified that the use of police officers in firearms licensing work was not cost effective. Additionally, those costs had probably been added to by the inconsistencies of practice throughout the police service in England, Wales and Scotland. The Home Office concluded:
  "Using police officers for such work is expensive in direct terms but also fails to capitalise on their valuable specialist police training and experience".
  It is envisaged that a firearms control board should also carry out a range of additional functions currently handled by various organisations, thus streamlining responsibility for firearms issues. Examples of such functions include the safety inspection of ranges, the administration of the control of explosives regulations and the co-ordination of the exchange of information concerning movement of firearms between EC member states.
  In 1993 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary published its own report entitled The Administration of Firearms Licensing. The report was generally critical of the 12 police forces that had been the subject of the inspection. HMIC concluded that the
  "inspection showed that the service provided varied between excellent and very inefficient".
  Additionally, licence applicants were subject to differing local requirements, some of which bordered on the discriminatory, without apparent justification. It noted that the
  "use of properly trained civilian personnel was very much in the minority and that untrained police staff were still common".
  Out of the 12 police forces inspected only one had developed a system which positively and effectively checked the names of offenders against its firearms and shotgun certificate holder database. That point may interest the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. For the information of the Committee, the police force was South Yorkshire.
  The Home Affairs Committee, in its third report, also considered the idea of a civilian firearms licensing body in its inquiry into the possession of handguns. In its report of July 1996 it recommended that the concept should be revisited by the Government. It accepted that there was evidence to suggest that the police had still not achieved the necessary standards of training in relation to firearms licensing.
  I am well aware that Lord Cullen did not recommend the removal from the police of any firearm licensing function. However, I need hardly remind the Committee that neither did he recommend the outlawing of heavy calibre pistols. It should be remembered, however, that Lord Cullen's comments must be read in conjunction with the terms of reference of his inquiry. Furthermore, he makes no reference to expense as a reason for not having such a board. No suggestion is made that the board's officials would not communicate with the police in exactly the same way as do, for example, Customs and Excise, traffic wardens or DVLC at Swansea. The police would be able to input criminal records and evidence of unreliability, just as information from other outside agencies can be added to an applicant's file. There is no difference in that sense.
  The key issues are, first, whether the chief officer could rely on the board to present him with a proper assessment of the applicant's background and whether he or she was suitable to be in possession of a firearm, and, secondly, whether it delivered the service in a more efficient, consistent and reliable fashion. I believe that the evidence to date suggests that that would not be too difficult.
  In addition to the comments from the Home Office in 1992—to which I have already referred—and from the Home Affairs Committee, I can add that the British Shooting Sports Council, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the Gun Trade Association are in favour of such a move. It is most important to respect their views as they witness at first hand how the present legislation is operating. Furthermore, the Firearms Consultative Committee, chaired—as we all know by now—by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is in favour of the recommendation.
  I wish to mention briefly the question of costs, which I appreciate is a key issue. It has proved extremely difficult to get hold of any meaningful figures either to establish the cost of administering the present system of licensing, or what the alternative costings would be of both establishing and running a firearms control board. As I understand it, the Home Office produced some figures from a report undertaken by Ernst & Young but it seems to be quite difficult to get hold of those figures for reasons which I cannot quite understand. However, I have some figures based on 1989 which show interesting and perhaps somewhat alarming variations in costs between the different regions. These figures were produced from ACPO's multi-force firearms scrutiny study. That seems a somewhat unusual term, but it is the one used. For example, in Cambridge the average costs of granting a firearm certificate is £12.61—a precise figure. The average cost of renewal is £13.55. That does not make much sense to me for obvious
  658
  reasons. However, conversely in North Wales the average cost of granting a firearm certificate is £29.29. It is a rural area and a little larger to administer. I can understand that. But the cost of renewal is £5.52. I believe that that demonstrates the wide inconsistencies within the regions. The ACPO multiforce firearms scrutiny study indicates that certificates could be issued for considerably less than the fee charged at that time.
  With regard to firearms and shotguns the overall figure for 1989 is as follows: administrative costs, £8.5 million; revenue £4.7 million; and a shortfall of £3.8 million. However, if such tasks were to be carried out by a firearm control board it is generally acknowledged that there will be a saving in costs, first, by not using the police but civilians. That has been demonstrated by other examples. Approximately 1, 500 police will be freed to concentrate on other tasks for which they have been trained and are more suitable to deal with.
  However, even if the final costs were in excess of the present system, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of this point. I am informed that shooters would be prepared to pay more if they knew that there was to be a fairer system in place which was not subject to the arbitrary decisions which seem to prevail under the present system, but would best serve the interests of everyone in minimising the risks of firearms getting into the wrong hands. At the end of the day that is surely what we seek to achieve above all else.
  It should be stressed that within the Home Office proposal chief constables would not have had the final say in administrative decision making. The police would have input only in terms of information concerning past convictions of applicants together with relevant intelligent information concerning individuals. However, in the amendment chief officers would not be asked to surrender the ultimate sanction as to who has or does not have guns in their area. That is an important point. They would be required to exercise such a decision on the advice of the new board. The officers of the board, based on regional centres, would take on the administration, assessment of licences, and inspection of security. Although the provision involves the cost of the board, the system releases police officers who are usually untrained in firearms matters. I believe that many of us have seen examples of that. They often have no interest in the subject through no fault of their own. It is imposed on them. They have not had proper training. It allows the police to concentrate their efforts on matters to which they are better suited. It would be more cost effective.
  The effect of the amendment is to provide a framework around which the Government can construct a firearm control board. It is deliberately drafted so as not to describe exactly what form the board should take—that would be left to the Secretary of State—but would be set up by an order requiring a positive procedure.
  Experience dictates that changes are necessary if we are to achieve a greater level of consistency in the issuing of firearm licences throughout the land. We need a body of experts with proper training and with a full

  659
  knowledge of firearms and their use. Above all—I return to this point because I believe it to be very important—we must establish the most efficient system to ensure as best we can (and that is all we can do) that the horrors of Hungerford and Dunblane are prevented from happening again. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: I support the excellent proposal of my noble friend Lord Peel. I would in any case support it as, yet again, it is a recommendation of the FCC—a body which is not listened to enough by Her Majesty's Government over matters of great importance.
  I wish to add nothing to my noble friend's most eloquent remarks, apart from one small point. It seems to me very much the case that, given the results of Options for Change, with people coming out of the Army, there are excellent NCOs of very good standing with excellent firearms training. They are firearms experts and they have man-management skills. They would be the ideal people to take the place of the police, to go round and inspect premises, perhaps on a county constabulary basis, to see whether people have the proposed security arrangements in place, whether they are people who are capable of using these weapons and indeed are licensed to do so, and whether they are capable of holding down a licence responsibly. One of my noble friend's most important points was that there would be no diminution in the power of chief officers of police in these matters. As he said, the shooting fraternity is quite happy to support the cost of the establishment of such a body. I support the amendment.
  Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to speak very briefly in support of my noble friend's amendment, which is a sensible one. During the Cullen inquiry the point was made that there is a tension between a police force seeking to regulate the shooting community and a police force under pressure to provide a good service to those very same people. The events of Dunblane and Hungerford inevitably raise questions as to how effectively the police discharged their responsibilities.
  An independent national licensing authority such as that proposed in my noble friend's amendment would remove that tension and relieve the police of a responsibility which I am not sure they particularly relish. I very much hope that this amendment will find favour with the Government.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rather hope that the noble Earl will press this amendment to a Division, if only because I want to see the Division List. I want to compare it with yesterday's Division List. Noble Lords who took part in that debate on the Police Bill will recall that when we proposed, and the Committee agreed, that there should be a senior judge responsible for giving authorisation for something under 2, 000 acts of intrusive surveillance by the police, we were accused by the Government of second-guessing the police—something under 2,000!
  What is proposed here is a firearms control panel which will advise on "any"—I assume that means "every", otherwise it does not mean anything at all—
  660
  application for the grant, renewal or revocation of a certificate. If ever there were a new bureaucracy being set up to second-guess the police, this is it.
  Lord Swansea: I speak as president of the BSSC and a former chairman of that body, which has long advocated this particular proposal. There is wide variation in the administration of the legislation as it relates to England and Wales, and also Scotland. It all depends on the whim of the chief constable. Some chief constables are very strict in their administration of the firearms Acts; others are very liberal. That has been a constant thorn in the flesh of many shooters. The firearms control board would iron all that out because all applications would go to that body. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
  I could regale your Lordships with examples of the ignorance of many policemen on firearms but at this time of night I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I support the amendment.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Shrewsbury: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, slightly misses the point on this matter. The firearms control board would not take any operational responsibilities or decisions away from chief officers of police; it would be purely advisory to chief officers. I understand that the position is not quite what the noble Lord said it was.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly my point about second-guessing. There would be a whole body of people—all of these ex-NCOs—who would have to look at every single application for the grant or revocation of a licence, but they still would not take the decision; the decision would be taken by the police. I repeat: if that is not second-guessing, what is?
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I was unfortunately not able to be here yesterday to help the Government in their predicament, but it seems to me that yesterday's vote was about a body being set up to second-guess the police when they were being over-active and not acting in the interests of the individual. The body proposed by this amendment is a body to be set up for a situation when the police are not very interested in what they are doing and where, on the record of Dunblane, they have not served the interests of the individual or the society which they are supposed to be protecting.
  My noble friend Lord Peel said that many of us had seen examples of police being untrained and disinterested in firearms certification matters. I have to confess to being among those people. I have had the police come to see me both in Scotland, where I have a number of rifles, and in London, where I keep shotguns. Although the interview that I have with the police is always entirely friendly and professional, they make it clear that they do not know what they are on about and they resent the waste of time that they are put to in this matter. They ask how the weapons work, and so on, but they are plainly not interested in their duty on this occasion. I therefore support this amendment. I think

  661
  this body would free the police to do more useful tasks in other areas. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I totally agree with what is proposed in this amendment. It is wise for us to consider that the police are the prime movers on this matter. It is vitally important that we have this body. I totally support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. It is important for us to have people with experience. Options for Change was mentioned. These people know what they are talking about. There is no point in asking a toddler to swim the Channel. These people understand entirely what is meant when it comes to firearms safety.
  Perhaps I may suggest that this board is not just for individuals; it also concerns the shooting clubs. This board would ensure that a shooting club, because of its staff, would be absolutely sound and secure.
  As to second-guessing, is that not what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was promoting in the amendment which he proposed on 16th January? Is not this second-guessing and double-checking exactly what we need to ensure safety for the public? I support the amendment.
  The Earl of Onslow: Surely what my noble friend Lord Peel is asking for is consistency. There is a lack of consistency. I have very little to criticise in regard to the Surrey constabulary which protects me very well. But on one occasion, two police constables were sent round to check my shotgun certificate and when I was not there another two were sent around. That is an extremely expensive way to operate and a waste of police power.
  One asks for consistency between one case and the next in the same police area and also all over the country. We cannot accept that the police have done a very good job in this matter; otherwise, Mr. Hamilton would not have had a firearm certificate. We should always bear that in mind.
  Just for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, let me say that I am very unhappy that I could not come to vote for his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, yesterday. I like the idea of warrants for people. But I shall still vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel if he presses it. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thinks that I am inconsistent, so be it.
  Lord Burton: Among documents shown by police to Lord Cullen was a report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland on the subject of the administration of the firearms licensing system in 1995. The Scottish Office press office called a meeting to present it to the press. It was cancelled at the last minute. It seemed that someone or other had tried to hide the document. It has been asked for by Members of the other place and by me. It was part of Lord Cullen's
  662
  evidence. So why is it not now available? I should have thought that it was very relevant indeed to the need for a control board.
  Lord Marlesford: In rising to support the amendment, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose amendment I supported last night. Quite frankly, what I voted for last night, as I understood it, was the imposition of safeguards against abuse of police powers in bugging and other forms of entry into people's premises. That is what I thought I had voted for. Frankly, that is totally different from what I understand this amendment to be about. This amendment is about creating a greater level of efficiency in the administration of a licensing system.
  It is rather sad that this is yet another recommendation to the Home Office previously made by the committee set up by the Home Office itself which has not been implemented. Inevitably, I am reminded of a letter written to The Times some years ago by A.P. Herbert, when yet another committee of which he had been a member had had its advice ignored. He said that the Government was like an elderly hypochondriac—always asking for a second opinion and never taking it. I hope very much that the tragedy of Dunblane will at least focus into a little action by the Home Office.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: After the sitting of the House last night, I myself am beginning to feel like an elderly hypochondriac. Notwithstanding any weakness of body, my spirit is quite resolved in opposing the amendment. The Government firmly believe that it would be the wrong route to follow.
  It may be instructive to inform the Committee of the history of the matter. In March 1992, the Home Office published a consultation paper on the proposal to set up a single national licensing authority for firearms, to be known as a firearms control board. The proposal was that the board would be run by civilians and take over from the police the task of issuing firearm and shotgun certificates, registering firearms dealers and carrying out other licensing work under the firearms Acts.
  After examining the responses to that consultation document, the Government undertook a detailed feasibility study into the advantages and disadvantages of a firearms control board. That study found that, although a national licensing authority might generally improve the quality of service to shooters and bring about what shooters sought and still seek—namely, consistency of approach to decision-making—the running costs of such an authority would be considerably higher than under the then current police system. There would also have been considerable start-up costs involved. I understand that a summary of the report was placed in the Library of the House and that the figures contained in it formed the basis of the revision of firearms fees brought into effect in January 1995.
  The study also threw up the point that there would be a continuing need to involve the police in firearms licensing and a continuing need for liaison between the licensing authority, which was responsible for granting the licences and certificates, and the police, who had

  663
  certain responsibilities, of course, for the enforcement of the law. This, so the Government's advice ran, would lead to a duplication of effort. It was for those reasons—the question of cost, the duplication of effort and the need to have a continuing police involvement in firearms work—that the Government announced in July 1994 that they would not be proceeding with the proposal.
  During the hearing conducted by Lord Cullen the issue of setting up a firearms control board was raised again. Lord Cullen records in paragraph 8.4 of his report:
  "The BSSC maintained that there was a case for taking the administration of licensing procedure, if not also decision making, away from the police, leaving them to be involved in the supply and interpretation of intelligence about applicants and holders. The Shooters' Rights Association maintained that the Home Office had misrepresented the cost. The Association's proposals were intended to simplify and streamline the licensing system so that it could be used as an intelligence-gathering system. The police would carry out the inspection processes in rural areas; and the work would be put out to tender in urban areas".
  Lord Cullen concluded that he was not in favour of the removal from the police of any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system. In paragraph 8.5 of his report he said:
  "This is not for any reason concerned with cost but on the view that there should be an integration of the carrying out of enquiries and the taking of decisions within a single organisation; that the police are in the best position to collect and assess information bearing on the suitability of applicants or holders, which is at the heart of the certification system; and that there is inevitably a close link between the certification system and questions of enforcement".
  In that paragraph of his report Lord Cullen fully supported the view which the Government had announced back in 1994.
  The Government are aware that the Firearms Consultative Committee has a different view, a view which it has continued to express. But, for the very reasons we were discussing earlier, it is a body independent of government, and the Government are perfectly entitled to reject that advice if they consider it right to do so. That remains the Government's position, having re-assessed the position in the light of the amendment.
  The Government are satisfied that the advantages of such a body would be outweighed by its drawbacks. In assessing whether a person is suitable to hold a firearm certificate, local knowledge is essential. It is not clear to us why officials in a central location could make judgments requiring local knowledge in a more effective and sensible way than could be done by local police officers or civilians. I understand that throughout the country those involved in licensing work for police forces, whether they be serving police officers or civilian personnel, receive training. That training enables them, with their local knowledge of the community in which they work, to go about the duties which they perform prior to the granting or refusal of the necessary certificates.
  A civilian licensing authority would not have that access to local knowledge; it would not have the informal contacts, the informal sources, which inform
  664
  so much of police work. Furthermore, it would be difficult for an independent body such as the one proposed to have access to police records and police reports to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Procurator Fiscal.
  Perhaps most importantly of all, the amendment proposes that the decision should remain with the chief officer of police. It is upon him that will rest the duty to decide whether or not a certificate should be granted or refused. It would be quite wrong to restrict the chief officer to any advice he might receive from a firearms control board, no matter how experienced in firearms work its personnel might be. He would be failing in his duty to ignore the opportunity of taking account of local knowledge and intelligence; and if he did so, and he reached the wrong decision, it would be he, not the firearms control board, who would be responsible for it.
  My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made it clear that the board did not wish to take over operational decisions. That is clear from the terms of his amendment. But that fact makes it clear that, as the chief officer is responsible for taking the decision, it is he, working with his officers and civilian staff, who should set about getting the information he requires. And, no doubt following the events of Dunblane, chief officers throughout the country will be reviewing the procedures they follow to see how and in what manner they can be improved.
  Mention has been made of the question of cost. It was said quite fairly on behalf of the movers of the amendment that shooters would be prepared to pay additional costs if that brought about the consistency which they seek. But if the fees are to be payable in terms of this amendment to the board, that makes no contribution to the costs which chief officers may incur through instructing their police officers and staff to carry out additional inquiries. So it may be that the amendment is defective in that way also.
  I fully accept that the amendment is put forward with the best of intentions and with a genuine wish to improve the procedures for licensing in order to bring about consistency. I personally feel that the fact that decisions will rest with chief constables admits the possibility that one chief constable in a certain situation make take a different view from another. That is what decision-taking is all about. If they are to be responsible for their decisions, they must be free to take the decision they believe to be correct on the information before them. To impose consistency upon them would be wrongly to restrict their discretion and bring about inevitably the taking of wrong decisions from time to time.
  At the end of the day I am not sure that cost is important one way or another. The important thing is that the decision taker has the information he deems to be appropriate. With the greatest respect to those who have moved and supported the amendment, I do not believe it would achieve that aim.
  Before I sit down I wish to refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Burton about a certain report prepared by the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland not having been made publicly available. As I think the noble Lord has been informed, the report was in draft

  665
  form at the time the Dunblane tragedy occurred. Together with certain other documents it was made available by the Government to Lord Cullen. He took the view that it was not appropriate to make that document public. The Government agree with that view for the reason that the report was in draft form and has clearly been overtaken by events. There is no suggestion of concealing anything. The way in which the Government seek to proceed is on the basis of the facts as we now know them. The view that we take about the report is the one that Lord Cullen took that it would not assist a sensible discussion of the problems that require to be addressed to look at a draft report, which is now some time out of date. I say again that I accept this amendment is put forward in a very sensitive and sensible manner. Nevertheless, I believe that the proposals are fatally flawed. If the matter is pressed to a vote, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Lord Monson: The noble and learned Lord believes that we should follow Lord Cullen's recommendations so far as concerns this amendment. Would it not have been better for all concerned if we had followed them in their entirety?
  Noble Lords Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It requires to be said again, as has been said many times in this House and in another place, both from these Benches and acknowledged on the Benches opposite, that all of Lord Cullen's recommendations were followed. We have come forward with legislation which takes his recommendations forward. If one looks at the detail of his report, it is impossible to point to a recommendation which the Government have not implemented. Therefore, I demur to the suggestion that lies behind the noble Lord's question.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the noble and learned Lord refer to Lord Cullen's summary of recommendations, at paragraph 24:
  "Consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for use in target shooting, preferably by their disablement"?
  How can the noble and learned Lord say that we have followed that statement?
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I believe that that was explained very fully by my noble friend Lady Blatch. The Government did consider the issue of disassembly. They have rejected it for reasons which have been made clear and which have found support in many quarters. They may not find support from every Member of the Committee, but the fact of the matter is that the issue of disassembly was addressed and rejected. The issue of fitting a locked barrel block was also addressed and was also rejected. The Government also considered the alternative to paragraph 24,
  "if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners".
  666
  It is important to remember the opening words of this recommendation, "consideration should be given". That is what the Government were invited to do and that is what they did. I believe that the Committee will be right to acknowledge that if one looks at the detail of this recommendation it and all the others have been followed.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. My noble and learned friend has not got over the words, "preferably by their disablement".
  Earl Attlee: The noble and learned Lord told us that in 1994 it was decided that we would not proceed with a firearms control board. Reading the papers one would have assumed at that time that we would actually see an improvement in the administration of firearms licensing, etc. We have found that we have not had an improvement but a disaster in Dunblane. The subject of the thematic report would tell us exactly what was going on with the various Scottish constabularies. It is very disappointing that the Government have not let us see that report because I am sure that it would be most interesting.
  Earl Peel: I need hardly say that I am extremely disappointed by what I have heard. I take heart from the fact that, with the exception of two Members of the Committee, everybody has supported me. I realise that two have not. One is the noble Lord opposite on the Opposition Front Bench, and the other is the noble and learned Lord on my Front Bench. No doubt that has great significance. I am thankful and grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and to all those who have supported me.
  My noble friend said that this amendment was fatally flawed. That is an odd comment in view of the fact that it was only in 1992 that the Home Office recommended that there should be a firearms control board. It was the Government's prerogative to change their mind, but I am surprised that they have done so in such a dramatic way. That is as may be.
  There has been discussion about Lord Cullen. The term "cherry picking" is almost designed for Lord Cullen. We pick those items that we like or those that we do not like. No doubt that applies as much to my noble friends on the Front Bench as my noble friends on the Back- Benches, but there we are. My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to consistency. He is right. That is one of the fundamental reasons why there is a need to revise the present system which is not working. My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to efficiency. He was quite right to point out the difference between yesterday's vote and today's non-vote, as it will be. I know that that will disappoint the noble Lord opposite because he wants to see who will go through the Division Lobbies. I am afraid that will not happen.
  I cannot understand the argument about duplication of effort. I thought I made it perfectly clear that the firearms control board would not duplicate the work of the police but would be reporting to the police and taking the place of police officers who at the moment

  667
  do this work. I do not believe that point stacks up in any shape or form. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied a second bureaucracy. They are not a substitute for the police; they are complementary to it, and that is the whole point of the amendment.
  I shall not divide the Committee on this matter. I am extremely disappointed by what I have heard. I will look at the matter most carefully and reserve the right to return to it at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
  Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Short Title, commencement and extent]:
  [Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Transitional arrangements for small-calibre pistols]:
  [Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
  [Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 86:
  Page 26, line 39, at end insert—
  (" .In section 32A(4)(b) and 32C(7), for the words "section 4(2) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (formalities on transfer of shot guns)" there shall be substituted the words "section 27(2)(b) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (requirements relating to transfers of firearms)".").
  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 86 with Amendment No. 71.1 beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 88:
  Page 26, line 46, at end insert—
  ("In section 54(2)(b), for the words "section 26" there shall be substituted the words "section 26A".").
  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 89:
  Page 26, line 46, at end insert—
  (" . In section 57 (interpretation), in subsection (4) for the definition of "rifle" there shall be substituted—
  ""rifled gun" includes carbine;".").
  The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 89 along with the Government's amendments, Amendments Nos. 71, 88, and so on. I never had a reply from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: I apologise to my noble friend, but I believe that it had more to do with the procedures of
  668
  the House at that time. I appreciate the sentiment behind my noble friend's amendment. I am happy to tell him that it is unnecessary. All carbines are rifled and so will automatically be caught by the slight change in words that have been included in Clause 1(3). It is not necessary to state specifically that they are included.
  The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for that information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 91:
  Page 26, line 48, after first ("words") insert (""26(4), ").
  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:

  Page 28, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 23(2)(a),

  the words "in, or".")

  Page 28, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 54(5)(b),

  the words "in, or".")

  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 71.1 beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

  Police Bill [H.L.]
  10.17 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
  Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 157:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  CRIMINAL RECORDS TRIBUNAL
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the Criminal Records Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to hear an appeal from any individual applicant who disputes the accuracy or relevance of a new certificate which is issued to him under section 106 and which contains the same information as the original certificate.
  (2) The Tribunal may examine any information held on the applicant and that contained on the certificate and assess the accuracy of the certificate.
  (3) A person who appeals to the Tribunal may be represented by a person of his choice.
  (4) The Tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions.
  (5) An appeal shall lie from a decision of the Tribunal to the High Court.
  (6) The Tribunal may award compensation to an individual applicant.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was debated much earlier this morning. It would be inappropriate of me to suggest that it be debated again. I do not move it.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that this amendment was pressed to a Division last night. Therefore the amendment is still on the Table.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is still on the Table. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 107 [Evidence of identity]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 158:
  Page 43, line 33, at end insert—
  ("() Regulations dealing with the taking of Fingerprints may make provision requiring their destruction in specified circumstances and by specified persons.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the amendment proves to be uncontentious. It permits regulations to be made to deal with the destruction of fingerprints which have been taken in order to provide evidence of identity, when those have served their purpose. The provisions we have in mind would be based on those in Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and would permit the individual to witness the destruction of the fingerprints. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for moving it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 109 [Registered bodies]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 161:
  Page 44, line 11, leave out first ("body") and insert ("person").
  Page 44, line 11, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
  Page 44, line 14, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 167:
  Page 44, line 17, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and").
  Page 44, line 17, at end insert—
  ("(2A) A person applying for registration under this section must be—
  670

  (a) a body corporate or unincorporate, or

  (b) a person appointed to an office by virtue of any enactment.").

  Page 44, line 18, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
  Page 44, line 20, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
  Page 44, line 21, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 169:
  Page 44, leave out line 24.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170:
  After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
  PERFORMANCE BY CONSTABLES ON CENTRAL SERVICE IN SCOTLAND OF FUNCTIONS UNDER THIS PART
  ("In Scotland a constable engaged on central service (within the meaning of section 38 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967) may perform functions under this Part (other than functions under section 104(2B) or (7), 110(1) or (2) or 112) on behalf of the Secretary of State; and without prejudice to the application of subsection (5) of section 108 in respect of any other person performing functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, that subsection shall apply in respect of any constable performing functions by virtue of this section as the subsection applies in respect of the Secretary of State.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at our debate on Second Reading I mentioned that in Scotland the work on access to criminal records under Part V of the Bill will be undertaken by the Scottish Criminal Record Office. This new clause allows that office to do the work on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Scottish Criminal Record Office is well established as the central database for criminal records in Scotland. It already carries out, in a centralised way, the criminal record checks under the present non-statutory arrangements in Scotland. These arrangements are very satisfactory and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to build on them, rather than setting up a new body in the way which is necessary in England and Wales.
  The Scottish Criminal Record Office is staffed by constables on central service under the Crown, in accordance with Section 38 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Although they are working under the Crown, these constables are not part of my right honourable friend's department and so cannot automatically carry out functions on his behalf. The new clause gives them that power.
  However, certain functions of the Secretary of State are excluded. These are the Secretary of State's power to make regulations and to specify and lay before Parliament the Code of Practice. These functions will be carried out, as regards Scotland, by the Scottish Office.
  The Scottish Criminal Record Office will, however, be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the normal operation of the disclosure system. I am confident that it will do so very well. Its reputation is high.
  Finally, the amendment extends the Secretary of State's limited immunity from proceedings, which is conferred by Clause 108(5) of the Bill, to include constables at SCRO who are performing functions on his behalf.
  The net effect of the new clause is to allow the Scottish Criminal Record Office to act in Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as the Criminal Records Agency will in England and Wales on behalf of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 110 [Code of practice]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 44, line 26, leave out ("may publish, and") and insert ("shall publish, and may").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 173 to 176. Amendments Nos. 171, 173 and 176 fulfil the undertaking that I gave at the Committee stage that the Bill would be amended so as to make explicit our intention that the Secretary of State will publish a code of practice. I hope that that will be acceptable to noble Lords.
  The understandable wish to ensure that ex-offenders are rehabilitated and not discriminated against is the motivation behind Amendment No. 174. This would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for monitoring compliance with the code of practice by registered bodies.
  As has been said many times during our consideration of this Bill, it is our intention to put in place an effective new system of criminal record checks which takes account of the rights of the individual but which is also straightforward and cost effective. The inspection and monitoring regime which is proposed by this amendment would add significantly to the cost and complexity of this scheme. It would also, let us not forget, be a most unwelcome burden on, for example, small businesses and local authorities.
  There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that wherever possible the code of practice is adhered to. The Secretary of State will be able to suspend registered bodies which he considers have failed to abide by the code. Sanctions also exist against individuals who breach the code by disclosing conviction information to those not entitled to it. Indeed, a criminal offence will be committed which could be punished by a prison sentence.
  Finally, Amendment No. 175 proposes that the code of practice should be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The draft code has already been the subject of a lengthy consultation process where we have sought the views of employers, regulatory bodies and civil liberties and voluntary groups. Some 250 responses were received and many of the views expressed have been taken on board. The code of practice will require further consolidation and
  672
  consultation and, given the detailed and extensive nature of this continuing process, we would expect the final code to meet the legitimate concerns raised by many interested parties. In light of that we do not consider it necessary for the code to be subject to affirmative resolution. It will, however, be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that the House will support the amendments in my name. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh not to press his amendment but I understand that he was not going to in any event.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding in advance to my Amendments Nos. 174 and 175. That was entirely proper since I had agreed that they should be grouped together. I am grateful also to the Government for accepting the important point that the code of practice should be mandatory and not permissive, which is contained in Amendment No. 171. It is important that codes of practice of this kind should be subject to as much scrutiny as possible, although I do not doubt for a moment the extent of the consultation which has taken place and the care which is being taken to take account of the responses to the consultation.
  The Home Office memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said, in reference to the code of practice, that because it will deal with administrative matters it is not thought necessary for it to be subject to any further parliamentary procedure. Indeed, that is what is now proposed although the Minister has told us that the code will be laid before Parliament but the affirmative resolution will not be used. In fact, my Amendment No. 175 provides for the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure to be used.
  However, I must query whether the code of practice will be purely administrative. Other codes of practice of this kind, and certainly previous codes of practice on this subject, have gone well beyond administrative matters and have dealt with organisations' policies on employing offenders. Indeed, they may well affect employment law. Those matters are not administrative. I query seriously whether it is right for the code of practice only to be laid before Parliament and not to be subject, as we propose in Amendment No. 175, to the negative resolution procedure.
  I recognise that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee accepted the assurances of the Home Office. I am less willing to do so. I did not move my Amendment No. 162 which is concerned with employers' policies on recruiting offenders because I knew that the matter could be debated, as it is being debated now, with this group of amendments. But the requirement which was in my Amendment No. 162 for those responsible to be satisfied that employers have positive policies for the employment of offenders is still very much in the forefront of my mind.
  I am encouraged by the words the Minister used in proposing this group of amendments when she talked about the necessity for fair and just policies to ensure that there is not unnecessary discrimination against

  673
  previous offenders as regards employment. After all, those offenders have served whatever punishment was awarded to them by the courts. It is extremely important that their lives should not be blighted subsequently by discrimination against them in the employment field. I say that not only as a matter of justice to the individuals concerned but also for two other reasons. First, obviously employers will do better if they have access to a wider catchment area, so to speak, of potential employees and that must include previous offenders.
  Secondly—and, perhaps, most importantly from the point of view of crime policy—it cannot be doubted that those previous offenders who find jobs and who are usefully employed are much less likely to offend again in the future. That is why it is necessary for there to be explicit recognition in the Bill of the need for positive policies for the employment of offenders. It is for that reason therefore that Amendment No. 174 requires the Secretary of State to,
  "make arrangements for the monitoring and inspection of compliance by registered bodies with any code of practice published under this section".
  Of course, it should now read "the code of practice" rather than "any code of practice". Because of the defective wording, it will not be possible for me to take the amendment to a vote.
  I also believe that Amendment No. 175—which calls for the code of practice
  "laid before Parliament … [to] be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament"—
  should be agreed to because of the importance of the code of practice. The Minister has not given any undertakings as to when the code of practice will be published. From what the Minister said, I can appreciate the care which has been taken to ensure that the representations that have been made to her are fully taken into account. I also recognise the validity of the Minister's point that a code of practice of this kind can, and should, be subject to change.
  Therefore, I hasten to add that I do not propose that the code of practice should be put on the face of the Bill. But it would be extremely helpful if the Minister gave an indication that the code—or at least the latest draft if the process is not complete—will be available to Parliament well before the Bill completes its passage. Although it would be very nice, I can hardly expect it to be available before the Third Reading in this House in a week's time. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give some indication that it will be available for consideration by the House of Commons at least in time for its Committee stage, so that we can ascertain the full extent of the provisions of the code of practice.
  Baroness Blatch: I should like, first, to say how grateful I am that the noble Lord has been so constructive about the proposals, albeit that he was critical about them not going far enough. While I am seeking advice, I should say that I do not believe that I can be definitive about the timing of the publication at this moment. However, I understand the noble Lord's
  674
  concern that we should have sight of the code of practice, at least in draft form, before the Bill makes much more progress through this House.
  I should like to comment on a particular concern of the noble Lord; namely, the way in which the code will affect employment. We do not intend to make provision in the code on employment policies because it would in effect mean that we were legislating in order to give former offenders a right not to be unfairly discriminated against. This we cannot do in a code; nor would it be right for central government to dictate to employers in what circumstances they should disregard convictions.
  We can of course advise employers, but it must be for them to decide the relevance of a particular conviction for the post in question. The code will therefore deal with administrative matters. That point was queried by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Guidance will of course be issued on employment practices. We believe it is the guidance to employers that will be important. My understanding is that we shall make the code available in draft. I do not know when that will be, but I shall seek more information on that tomorrow and I shall write to the noble Lord.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for those comments. Before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, I hope she will understand that unless the code of practice is to be available in time for full consideration by another place there may be parliamentary activity—let me put it that way—to ensure that the matter is properly considered. She ought to understand also that I understand her assurances that the code of practice will cover only administrative matters, but if that is the case my honourable friends in another place will want to move a comparable amendment to my Amendment No. 162 to ensure that there are on the face of the Bill adequate protections for previous offenders in employment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 173:
  Page 44, line 29, leave out from ("Parliament") to end of line 30 and insert ("the code of practice under this section as soon as practicable after publication and after revision.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 176:
  Page 44, line 32, leave out ("a code of practice published") and insert ("the code of practice").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 112 [Regulations):
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 179:
  Page 45, line 24, leave out ("section or section 104(7)") and insert ("Part").

  675
  Page 45, line 25, after ("instrument") insert—
  ("(2A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made by virtue of section 104(2B) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (2B) A statutory instrument to which subsection (2A) does not apply shall be").
  Page 45, line 27, leave out ("section or section 104(7)") and insert ("Part").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 145. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 179 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 119 [Rehabilitation of Offenders]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 180:
  Page 49, line 13, at end insert—
  ("() section 39 of the Osteopaths Act 1993;").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 119 is concerned with repealing certain sections of previous legislation, which provide for exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. These amendments complete that process by repealing provisions in the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994. It is our intention that these exceptions will be re-applied as part of a consolidated order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not understand those comments. I understand the difference between osteopaths and chiropractors because my wife has had occasion to use both of them, but I do not understand what is being taken out of the Osteopaths Act and the Chiropractors Act. Is it the case that at the moment there is a requirement on osteopaths and chiropractors to employ a significant number of previous offenders? If that is the case, it seems slightly odd as most osteopaths and chiropractors are in private practice and do not employ anyone. If that is the case, is the intention to take out that provision and bring it back in a consolidated order, or is it the case that it is not required to do that at the moment and the intention is to bring it in and then take it out? It is not very clear to me.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that it is simply a consolidation measure. The amendment enables provisions in the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994 to be re-enacted in a consolidated form in an exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 181:
  Page 49, line 14, at end insert—
  ("() section 40 of the Chiropractors Act 1994.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 121 [Commencement]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 182:
  Page 49, line 28, leave out ("or II") and insert (", II or IV").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that this will be a little more straightforward. The amendment simply applies the commencement provisions in Clause 121(3) to Part IV of the Bill as well as to Parts I and II. This is to allow for the fact that there may, for example, be a need to transfer some existing contractual rights and liabilities from the Home Office to the police information technology organisation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 183 to 185:
  Page 74, line 37, at end insert—
  ("In section 39 (liability for wrongful acts of constables), in subsection (4), after "1996" there shall be inserted "or section 23 of the Police Act 1997".").
  Page 75, line 19, at end insert—
  ("In section 14 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (liability for wrongful acts of members of the police force), in subsection (5), after "Police Act 1996" there shall be inserted "or section 23 of the Police Act 1997".").
  Page 75, line 20, leave out ("the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970") and insert ("that Act").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 186:
  Page 77, line 45, at end insert ("and
  (b) after "1967" there shall be inserted "or means relevant service within paragraph (ba) or (bb) of section 38A(1) of the said Act of 1967"").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 187:
  Page 86, line 22, at end insert—
  ("In section 88 (liability for wrongful acts of constables), in subsection (5)(b), after "or 98" there shall be inserted "of this Act or section 23 of the Police Act 1997".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 188:
  Page 86, leave out lines 36 to 41.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 127. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 189:

  Page 88, line 11, at end insert—

  ("1967 c. 77.

  Police (Scotland) Act 1967

  In section 39(4), the word "or" in the third place where it occurs.")

  The noble Baroness: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 190 and 191:
  Page 88, line 26, at end insert—
  ("1993 c. 21. Osteopaths Act 1993. Section 39.")
  Page 88, line 28, at end insert—
  ("1994 c. 17. Chiropractors Act 1994. Section 40.")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 180. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
  Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
  Hot and Cold Water Taps: Safety
  Hot and Cold Water Taps: Safety
  Scottish Prison Service: Penal Lexicon
  Scottish Prison Service: Penal Lexicon
  Great Lakes Region: Committee Report
  Great Lakes Region: Committee Report
  Geneva Conventions: Protocols 1 and 2
  Geneva Conventions: Protocols 1 and 2
  Former Yugoslavia: Aidx
  Former Yugoslavia: Aidx
  Sexual Offences against Minors
  Sexual Offences against Minors