| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Sims : No. I shall not give way to my hon. Friend because I intend to speak for only a few more minutes. I have been asked to be brief. I am sorry. My hon. Friend said her piece with some vigour and at some length.
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on introducing the Bill. He is a man of wide interests and is no stranger to controversy. Having won first place in the ballot, he could have adopted one of a number of issues. I am especially pleased that he decided to promote this Bill. I join others in congratulating PAT and its director, Jane Dunmore, on the responsible, moderate and effective campaign that they have waged. PAT has achieved its first object in securing first place in the ballot through the hon. Member for Warley, East. I hope that it will achieve its second object, which is to make the Bill an Act. My position on tobacco is well known. I start with the fact--it is well established, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay may say-- that it is literally a deadly product. Various figures have been quoted and I shall not
Column 1158
repeat them. I merely invite the House to remember that during today about 300 people will probably die prematurely through smoking-related diseases.The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of the advice of the Government's chief medical officer who has said that tobacco is the greatest cause of avoidable death. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) sought to draw a distinction between tobacco and heart disease as potential causes of death. The House may wish to know that the Government accept the advice of the Royal College of Physicians that smoking causes roughly 20 per cent. of all deaths that are ultimately recorded as being caused by heart disease.
Mr. Sims : My hon. Friend has made a brief but helpful contribution to the debate. The facts and figures to which he referred could not have come from a better source.
If tobacco had only just been discovered, it would never be allowed on the market. We must be realistic, however, and accept that it exists. I believe that it is the Government's duty to persuade smokers to give up the habit and to dissuade others from starting to smoke. There are a number of ways of doing that and some of them have been discussed today.
People such as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay will argue that I and others are trying to impose restrictions on freedom. She argues that individuals should be free to make their own judgments. That is not an argument which I accept. I believe that my hon. Friend and others would find themselves on different ground if they pursued their argument and extended it to drugs and the ingredients of foodstuffs. If they are making a fair comment in respect of adults, that cannot be accepted when it comes to children. Surely it is the duty of us all to protect children's health. The Bill would be an effective means of doing that.
I hope that we shall have a worthwhile series of debates in Committee. I am pleased that there is good will on the part of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench and the hon. Member for Warley, East and a willingness to give and take. I am sure that at the end of the day we shall have an effective and workable Act. I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. 2.8 pm
Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : I shall not detain the House unduly. I wish to say in a short speech that I am opposed to the Bill in principle as well as in detail.
I acknowledge the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that the Bill might proceed in Committee, when we can discuss a number of issues with which I am concerned.
I am against the Bill in principle because I believe it to be unnecessary. I agree that children under the age of 16 years should not and must not smoke. It is illegal for such children to smoke. Therefore, we should be concerned about the enforcement of existing legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has already pointed out that if something is illegal by virtue of existing legislation passed by the House, but the law is still being broken, we should either consider the enforceability of that law or the need to increase penalties
Column 1159
for breaking that law. Certainly the penalties for selling cigarettes to children under 16 would be increased in the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister has said that they were due to increase anyway as a result of the Criminal Justice Bill now before the House.If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee on the Bill I shall outline many of the reasons behind my detailed opposition to it--they are similar to those outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister. I share his concern about local authorities acting as policemen because those authorities are already complaining enough about the burdens imposed upon them by the House. It is clear that local authorities would have to receive vastly increased resources to police the Bill. New section 7(1H) of the 1933 Act states that : "It shall be the duty of every local authority to publish an annual report".
New section 7 (1I) states :
"In this section-- local authority' means a county, district ' I have a county council and a district council. Does the Bill mean that both authorities would have a duty to police the hapless retailer? That is a good Committee point, which I shall not pursue further. I am also concerned, however, about vending machines and in Committee I would support any amendment that my hon. Friend the Minister might table.
My other major concern relates to clause 5 and tobacco advertisements. I find it incredible that an Act of Parliament would seek to ban the type of illuminated signs provided by tobacco companies that one often sees on the exterior of tobacconists or newsagents. It is a ridiculous idea. If my hon. Friend the Minister does not table an amendment to delete clause 5(1)(a) and (b) I shall certainly do so.
There are a number of detailed reasons why I should seek to amend the Bill in Committee, but, if I had my way, the Bill would not pass into law.
2.12 pm
Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) : I shall detain the House for five to 10 minutes only. I welcome the initiative behind the Bill to try to combat the serious problem of the illegal sale of cigarettes to people under 16.
We can all think back to our teenage years when our parents tried to ensure that we did not smoke--rightly so. They would have been extremely concerned about people selling cigarettes to us if we had been foolish enough to attempt to buy them, given that that is against the law. There is a great deal of support throughout the country for addressing that problem. In that sense, I support the objective behind the Bill.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Minister, I also support the idea of increasing the maximum fine for selling cigarettes to people under 16. If a newsagent does not sell such cigarettes illegally he will not incur a fine. I understand that the Bill will increase the fine from £400 to £2,000, but that represents an increase in the maximum fine. Presumably the courts would have the flexibility to apply the maximum fine to someone who was a repeat offender. However, to increase the fine incurred by a newsagent or anyone else who sold cigarettes to people under 16 does not necessarily require a new Bill. That could easily be
Column 1160
catered for in the Criminal Justice Bill--I am a member of the Standing Committee considering that--and would not necessarily mean a new Bill.The newsagents who knowingly break the law are probably in a minority. However, the Bill goes over the top. I certainly could not support it on Second Reading in its current form and I should want major amendments in Committee in order to support it on Third Reading.
The first aspect with which I shall deal is vending machines. We should remember that cigarettes are a legal product. They are legally available for adults in a free society. It is clear from the way in which the Bill is worded that the real intent is not merely to try to safeguard those under 16 years of age, but to have a go at the tobacco industry and to try to reduce the availability of tobacco products. The Bill is a covert attempt to turn legality into quasi-legality. The way in which the Bill attempts to place unworkable and impractical responsibilities on people who happen to have vending machines on some part of their property is intolerable. At the risk of causing a few smirks around the Chamber, this is like a Bill being presented to the House to make a local authority liable to court action if an under-16 went into a lavatory for which the authority had responsibility and bought condoms from a machine, given that it is illegal to have sexual intercourse under the age of 16. My objection to the Bill is that it seeks to do this for cigarettes. It is simply not acceptable and it would be unfair, unrealistic and unworkable if the Bill in its present form became law, because of its intentions on the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. I am saying this as a non-smoker, as an hon. Member with no constituency interest in employment in the tobacco industry and as an impartial and objective observer on whether this part of the Bill is workable and desirable.
Another part of the Bill that is intolerable is the attempt to place more prohibitions on advertising of tobacco products. In a free society there should not merely be freedom of speech for the individual, but freedom of commercial speech for those who wish to advertise products that are legally available to adults who wish to purchase them. It would be deceitful for me and for the House to enact the Bill unamended because we would considerably reduce the freedom of commercial speech regarding a product that is legal. Parliament has not in any way suggested that adults should not be allowed to purchase it.
If a product is legal, and therefore available for purchase, clearly people who wish to increase their market share of the product should be able to advertise it. Advertising, whether of a brand of cigarette or of a motor vehicle, does not do much to alter total market size. Clearly, the total market for cigarettes is on the decrease and it will probably continue to decline due to a change in the public's attitude towards smoking for many reasons. Advertising enables producers to try to grab a bigger market share of the total market place. Because Vauxhall has an especially good advert for the Astra on television does not mean that more people will buy motor cars. It is more likely to mean that more people will buy Astras and fewer people will buy Escorts or Renaults.
To return to vending machines, one has to consider the practicalities of enforcing the provisions of the Bill, which provides that newsagents who sell products to people under 16--magazines, newspapers and sweets among others--would have perpetually to ensure that those
Column 1161
children, who have a perfect right to be in the shop, do not nip over to a vending machine while they are serving someone at the counter, and take out a product that they may not necessarily be intending to use but may be buying for their parents, or for a brother or sister. That is intolerable, as is the attack on the freedom of commercial speech and advertising, which is paranoid and spurious. I do not think that it would have much effect on the extent to which the under- 16s smoke or the extent to which smoking materials are sold to them.It is worth noting that the industry itself has spent £3.5 million over the past four years urging proprietors not to sell cigarettes to under -16s. The industry does not take the problem lightly and I do not feel that the Bill in its present form constitutes a just reward for its genuine attempts to solve that problem.
I do not intend to oppose the Bill on Second Reading ; nor do I intend to speak for much longer. If, however, the Bill is not substantially altered in Committee and if its attitudes towards vending machines, the freedom of commercial advertising and the inflicting of unworkable and unrealistic duties on local authorities are not subjected to the same process I shall certainly not be able to support it on Third Reading.
The Bill addresses a problem, but it tends to blow up that problem out of all proportion. Its proposals are, as I said, neither realistic nor practicable and tread on the toes of what I consider important principles in a free society. We are all concerned about the issues with which it deals--I know that many of my constituents are--but it is badly thought out and shows no sense of proportion in regard to either the problem or the solutions that we must find if we are able to reduce it substantially over the coming decade. Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Column 1162
Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.24 pm
Mr. Dudley Fishburn (Kensington) : The purpose of this modest though important Bill is to replace the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 with a modern set of powers. They will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to implement the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials--something which his present powers will not allow him to do in full.
Well over 500,000 packages of radioactive material are transported by road in Britain each year. The Bill seeks to regulate the conditions under which these packages are moved about. Most of them are transported to hospitals, others go to industry and a few of the larger shipments are sent by road to fuel nuclear reactors. The IAEA is a specialist agency of the United Nations in Vienna and advises on all aspects of the civil nuclear industry. The IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material set out minimum standards for its transport by road. They also set out the necessary testing procedures and labelling requirements.
The regulations were last revised in 1985. All member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency are under an obligation to implement the regulations, by way of domestic legislation, as soon as possible. The deadline set was 1990. Britain failed to meet that deadline. My Bill puts that right. I commend it to the House. 2.26 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on securing a Second Reading of the Bill and I express my full support for his efforts. The Bill intends simply to bring up to date my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's powers to make regulations governing the transport of radioactive material by road and his ability to enforce the regulations. As my hon. Friend has already said, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to comply with the United Kingdom's obligations as a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency to--
Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : For the sake of the record and given the short time available for the debate, may I say that the Opposition support the main thrust of the Bill. We should have liked to raise a number of issues today. If, however, the Bill is given a Second Reading and is considered in Committee, we shall raise our concerns there.
Mr. Chope : I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington joins me in thanking the hon. Lady for her very encouraging comments.
The Bill is intended to cover only road transport. Provisions already exist in other legislation that allow the Secretary of State to control the transport of radioactive material by rail, air and sea. These provisions are specific to the mode of transport and therefore cannot be used for regulating road transport.
At present, the transport by road of radioactive material is controlled by regulations made under
Column 1163
provisions contained in the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. These provisions have become outdated in the modern world, where the use of radioactive materials for medical and industrial purposes far exceeds those originally envisaged when the Act was passed in 1948. It is essential that the Secretary of State has sufficient powers available to him to control the traffic in radioactive material. The Bill will provide those powers. I ask the House to support the Bill and give it a Second Reading.The House will recall that when the Bill was before the House during the last Session it did not get through because of a technical hitch at a very late stage, even though it enjoyed the support of most hon. Members. One of the issues raised during its Committee stage last Session was whether the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. It does now apply to Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Column 1164
Employment (Upper Age Limits in Advertisements) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Objection cannot be taken at this stage.
Mr. Winnick : The Bill would ensure that advertisements for employment cannot specify age. To discriminate on the ground of age is as wrong as discrimination on any other grounds.
I do not see that this modest Bill should be opposed by the Government--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on 1 March.
Human Rights Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Now, Sir.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is the hon. Gentleman moving the Second Reading on behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?
Second Reading deferred till 25 January.
Licensing Reform Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till 1 February.
Declaration of War(Requirement for Parliamentary Approval) Bill Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 21st January, the Motions in the name of Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to Health and to Social Security may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon ; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, and the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith successively the Question on the said Motion, or Motion as amended, and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other Motion, which may then be made, and of any Amendments thereto which may have been selected by him, which may then be moved ; and, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each such Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion.-- [Mr. Chapman.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 22nd January, the Motions in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to European Standing Committees and to European Community Documents may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon ; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have
Column 1165
been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith successively the Question on the said Motion, or Motion as amended, and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other Motion, which may then be made, and of any Amendments thereto which may have been selected by him, which may then be moved.-- [Mr. Chapman.]Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23rd January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 14 (Exempted business) and 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), Mr. Speaker shall, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Housing (Scotland), if those proceedings have not been previously disposed of, put the Question already proposed from the Chair ; and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other such Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. Neil Kinnock, which may then be moved ; and proceedings on the said Motions may continue after the expiration of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Chapman.]
Mr. Winnick : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At some stage, may we be given some advice on the procedure at 2.30 pm on a Friday? I had a minute or two--I am not complaining about that as I was 15th in the private Member's ballot--but it is unfortunate that when a Whip, carrying out his duty, shouts "Object" it means, in effect, that I do not have the opportunity to advance a case for my Bill. Surely a procedure could be considered-- [Interruption.] I do not know what all this muttering is about. Even if hon. Members disagree with me, the Bill is worthy of debate. Under the procedure that we have had for years, when a Whip shouts "Object" the House is denied the opportunity of discussing the merits of a Bill. That is unfair.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Is it on the same point?
Mr. Arnold : Yes. Is not it a fact that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) talked out his Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is the first point. The hon. Gentleman talked out the Bill. We have discussed the 2.30 pm procedure many times in previous Sessions. We are using a well-established procedure. An objection at 2.30 pm does not necessarily mean an objection to the principle of the Bill but an objection to the Bill going through on the nod without debate. As has been said from the Chair on many occasions, if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the procedure, he can, yet again, ask the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter.
Column 1166
Audit Commission
Motion made, and Question proposed , That this House do now adjourn-- [Mr. Chapman.]
2.32 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : In spite of the momentous events taking place elsewhere, I am pleased to move this debate on extending the role of the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission is now nearly eight years old. It is one of the most important and effective innovations that we have introduced into the machinery of government. Its success and usefulness is underlined by the fact that even the Labour party acknowledges its value.
Political debate frequently centres on how much money is spent on our public services, but insufficient attention is paid to value-for-money considerations. In many areas of public expenditure, we must focus greater attention on the effectiveness of public spending. Input is extremely important ; output is vital. The Audit Commission addresses exactly that point. It is the enemy of waste and inefficiency and the taxpayers' best friend.
The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to place on record the great value that has been derived already from the Audit Commission's work, particularly in its value-for-money studies. If my hon. Friend the Minister takes the same view as I do about that, my second aim today is to press him to explore other aspects where the skills and efforts of the Audit Commission may usefully be deployed. I should also like the House to recognise the skill that has been shown and the success that has been achieved by the current controller of the Audit Commission, Howard Davies, and his predecessor, John Banham. The Audit Commission should not be seen in any negative or cost-cutting sense. As the commission said, value for money is not simply a matter of economy, of cutting either the quality or the scale of the services provided. Value-for-money opportunities identified can either improve existing services or channel additional funds to other worthwhile policy objectives. It is important to note that in the past the commission criticised central Government where some national policies made it difficult for local authorities to manage their affairs efficiently. That was why some of my hon. Friends and I fought so hard during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill last year to allow the commission to comment on the effect that ministerial directives on health could have throughout the health service. It must be said that the Department of Health did not at the time regard this as high a priority as my hon. Friends and I did, and we were pleased when my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State accepted our argument on Report.
I should like particularly to draw the attention of the House to the commission's report last October on day care surgery. That report demonstrated that waiting lists could be cut by one third through more efficient use of day surgery. How did it reach that excellent and helpful conclusion? It certainly was not armchair guesswork or political fantasy. The Audit Commission focused on a basket of 20 common operations which account for about 30 per cent. of all surgery. If all district health authorities used day care treatment to the same extent as the 25 per cent. that use it most, an additional 186,000 patients could
Column 1167
be treated in England and Wales every year at no extra cost. Many other operations are suitable for day care treatment, offering the potential for an estimated 300,000 additional places per year. This is no dry analysis. It means that an increase in activity of this sort could have a significant impact on waiting times for all types of surgery, thus helping many of our constituents who are kept waiting too long for the health care that they need.It is also worth mentioning the report entitled "Making a Reality of Community Care". That particularly important report made a valuable contribution--indeed, an essential one--to the work that Sir Roy Griffiths carried out on care in the community. He cited that work many times in his report on this subject.
However, it is in the area of local government that the Audit Commission has achieved most. One statistic suffices to demonstrate that point. It is interesting to note that in 1988 the commission reported that £750 million of savings had been identified, of which just under a third had been realised. By March 1990, the saving identified had reached £1,350 million and over £670 million had been achieved.
One of the commission's best reports entitled "Managing Social Services for the Elderly More Effectively" demonstrated clearly that the work undertaken was not about cost cutting but about ensuring that the right people received the right service. It demonstrated that there was a critical need for efficient management systems if clients were to be properly looked after. The report addressed itself to the elected members of a local authority to ensure that they had the right tools and benchmarks against which to judge and assess the performance of their officers. The report did a great deal to promote efficiency and effectiveness in local government. Indeed, I am proud that my local authority, Gedling, regularly receives warm praise from the Audit Commission. This is a credit to the leader of the council, Robert Baird-Parker, and his colleagues and to the chief executive, Bill Brown, and his officers and staff.
More recently, the Audit Commission produced a most helpful report on the cost of absence through sickness to the local authorities. That report deserves far more prominence than it has received so far ; what it showed was nothing short of a thorough-going scandal in local government. Absence through sickness in the London boroughs was twice the CBI's national average and these figures, bad as they are, were bolstered by generous terms and conditions of employment. Before the Audit Commission started its investigation, many authorities had no idea of their sickness levels. Lambeth council was so appalled when it learned from the Audit Commission of its figure that it changed its system and introduced a number of new measures, which promptly caused a strike. It emerged that Brent was losing £8 million a year through sickness.
This is the measure of the value of the survey. If London boroughs controlled their absence through sickness at the level of the national average, the community charge in London would be £25 a head lower. It is now up to local government to benefit those whom it represents by taking action as a result of the Audit Commission's work.
Column 1168
I shall mention several areas in which I want the work of the Audit Commission to be extended or deployed and in which I believe that better value for money, efficiency and effectiveness could be achieved if it were. The first is the police. We have increased funding for the police enormously in recent years and the police have become more efficient. That is true of nowhere more than Nottinghamshire, where we have an excellent force under the leadership of Dan Crompton. However, there are legitimate doubts about how effectively the police use the resources more generally. A recent Audit Commission report, entitled "Improving the Performance of the Finger Print Service", demonstrated a huge variety in the cost of running different finger printing bureaux, sometimes varying by a factor of six. The report demonstrates the wide variations in effectiveness in terms of convictions secured through finger print evidence. It varies from 75 convictions per officer down to only four per officer per year. That is a staggering difference by any yardstick.Although the Audit Commission has power to look at provincial forces, it is not allowed to look at the Metropolitan police. Why not? Are we saying that the Audit Commission's disciplines are necessary for the provincial police, but not for the Met? I think not. The Home Secretary should open up the Met to the Audit Commission's scrutiny. I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that the Met is different from provincial police forces because it is not under local control and, therefore, does not come within the powers of scrutiny of the Audit Commission. That point was dispensed with last year when its powers were extended into the national health service. Those powers can and should be extended elsewhere. Last month, the commission produced another worthwhile report on the police which showed major weaknesses in police monitoring of their own performance. The report, entitled "Effective
Policing--Performance Review in Police Forces", concluded that definitions of good policing are not sufficiently backed by an assessment of police performance. It also recommended that police authorities and chief constables should develop a national framework to allow comparisons between forces. The measurement of police performance is no easy matter, but there can be no excuse for failing to make the attempt. The report goes on to recommend a better system of monitoring clear-up rates--an approach which could allow a far closer analysis of the methods used to solve crimes and their progress through the judicial system.
Let us consider magistrates courts. The efficiency unit scrutiny of magistrates courts identified, among other things, an audit gap--no one actually looked at them to see how well or badly they used their funds. Whatever is decided by the Government about magistrates courts and whether they become a "next steps" agency as suggested by the efficiency unit or not, they would benefit from the Audit Commission's attentions. Indeed, I believe that some local authorities have asked that the Audit Commission do just that. But as yet it is not empowered to do so. There is considerable public concern about the speed and efficiency of our courts and the police are concerned about that, too. We need to consider the location of the courts and the costs associated with that. If the Audit Commission deploys its skills on the magistrates courts, we shall, I suspect, save a fortune.
Column 1169
It is the declared intention of the Government that the housing associations should take a greater role in providing public housing. However, it is obvious that some provide this service far more effectively and efficiently than others. I should like the Audit Commisison to deploy its skills to enable the public and Parliament to see clearly what best practice in our housing associations is and how near to providing best value for money the housing associations that, for example, serve my constituents, come to achieving that aim. We need a proper, comparative, intrusive audit of the housing associations to ensure that they are spending the vast sums of public money as effectively as possible, not least because, at the moment, the same body that funds them audits them. That is not in anyone's interest and means that there is no independent scrutiny. There are many other obvious sectors, such as universities, where perennial financial difficulties need closer public scrutiny.So far, about 50 schools have decided to opt out of local education Authority control. I believe that there will, and should, be many more. Schools are better placed than local education authorities to decide how to spend their budgets in the best interests of the children they are educating. In due course, we should let the Audit Commission take a look at some of the new management and educational ideas implemented by opt-out schools. I suspect that those schools will be well managed and run and there may be valuable lessons for the LEAs to learn from them for schools that have decided not to opt out. The Audit Commission is the right organisation to assess and promote the lessons learnt.
I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that he is receptive to the sort of ideas that I have outlined. It was not a long list and was far from comprehensive. Will he tell the House that he supports such ideas and encourage the Audit Commission to pursue and extend its excellent work in the directions that I have described? I hope that he will. The Audit Commission has a valuable role to play in securing better value for money in major sectors of public spending. Let the Minister make clear that he intends actively to encourage it in the extension of its existing operations. 2.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for initiating this debate on the Audit Commission or, to give the commission its full title, the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. I emphasise the full title because it underlines the remarks of my hon. Friend. Gedling is fortunate to have my hon. Friend as its Member of Parliament and my hon. Friend is fortunate to have, in Gedling borough council, a well-run local authority. I have no difficulty--indeed, I am delighted to join him--in thanking and congratulating the comptroller of the Audit Commission, Howard Davies, and his predecessor, John Banham.
The Audit Commission has a long history--longer than most people realise-- of first-class work. The origin of the Audit Commission lies in the Poor Law (Amendment) Act 1844, which established a system for auditing poor law expenditure and thus created the office of district auditor. In the second half of the 19th century new types of local
| Next Section
| Home Page |