| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I suggest that he may find it fruitful to intervene on the Minister's speech.
Dr. Reid : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are wasting time. I call the Under- Secretary of State for Scotland.
Dr. Reid : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will give way, as he has always been generous in that regard, but I do not wish to intervene on his speech. I did not ask about other hon. Members who might want to speak ; I asked a specific question. How can it be in order for a debate to be held on the subject of the Clydesdale tube works without the local Member of Parliament being able to catch your eye?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I can add nothing to what I have already said.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) : I confirm that I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) if he wishes to intervene at an appropriate point.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the steel industry, particularly in Scotland, and on the measures for the regeneration of Lanarkshire. First, let me pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in investigating the closures in the Scottish steel industry. The House is agreed that the Committee has carried out a thorough investigation, which has given us all a better insight into the background
Column 498
and implications of those closures. Let me also join other hon. Members in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) a speedy return to good health and the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly set the debate in the framework of the European Coal and Steel Community provisions. He was right to emphasise that not only the Committee's conclusion but the very process of taking evidence, has been illuminating. I shall refer later to what was said by another Committee member, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). A number of hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), represent communities that are directly affected by the plant closures. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)-- somewhat uncharacteristically--began by criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent. Surely he knows that the arrangement has always been for the Secretary of State for Scotland to accompany Her Majesty on official visits to Scotland--just as the Secretary of State for Wales accompanies her in Wales and the Secretary of State for Defence accompanies her on visits to defence establishments.I address the hon. Member for Garscadden more in sorrow than in anger. However, I entirely reject the allegations of collusion and ill faith made, on the basis of no evidence, by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Such allegations by the Scottish National party highlight the difference between its attitude to Scotland's steel problems and that of the Labour party. My impression is that Labour Members have been concerned primarily with jobs, while SNP Members, all too often, have been concerned primarily with headlines.
Mr. Salmond : Was the Minister present at the meeting on 4 June between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the chairman of British Steel? Is it true that, in response to the announcement of the Dalzell closure, the Secretary of State said :
"You know my view that the management of British Steel is entirely a matter for you, subject of course to competition law" ?
Mr. Stewart : I certainly confirm that I was present at that meeting. Over a long period, the Scottish Office has asked British Steel to consider Dalzell's case, and we presented a paper to British Steel arguing that case. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan alleged that there was some kind of collusion or ill faith in my decision to publish that Scottish Office document. I published it in response to a specific request by the Dalzell trade unions. I held no press conference about it but gave the document to the trade unions so that they could use it as they wished. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegations.
Mr. Salmond : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart : Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his allegations? I shall not give way--the hon. Gentleman can simply say, "Yes."
Mr. Salmond : Will the Minister answer my second question?
Column 499
Mr. Stewart : I shall answer it if the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to do so.At that meeting with the chairman of British Steel and some of his colleagues, we were told, in total commercial confidentiality, of the decision in relation to Dalzell. We pointed out that we had argued Dalzell's case over a long period, and we expressed extreme disappointment at the news that had been brought to us. We asked for confirmation that the board had fully considered the Scottish Office document, and we were assured that it had carefully considered every option and had come to the conclusion to invest on Teesside. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is suggesting that we should, somehow, have released that information to the public, that would have been a breach of faith and trust. As for his allegation about the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association and subsequent statements, he was not at that meeting.
Mr. Salmond : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have specifically asked the Minister twice about the response to Bob Scholey's news--is it correct?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Stewart : I have already answered that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Although no one doubts that the concern of the hon. Member for Garscadden is genuine, when I asked him what he would have done differently in the past year had he been Secretary of State for Scotland, his reply was not convincing. The essence of his reply was that he would have resigned.
Dr. Reid : I shall go back on my word and take the opportunity to intervene on the Minister. The position has been made absolutely clear by my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on numerous occasions. First, there would have been an interventionist Department of Trade and Industry. Secondly, there would have been a strengthened Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to which British Steel would have been taken. Thirdly, there would have been joint ventures with British Steel in new technology, which are legal under both treaties in Europe. Fourthly, research assistance would have been channelled to British Steel in terms of moneys for research and development. Again, that would have been legal under European legislation. I give the Minister merely four or five measures that a Labour Government would have taken in the past two years for Ravenscraig and Clydesdale.
The great tragedy is that Bob Scholey is well aware of what a Labour Government would do had the plants remained. With the prospect of a Labour Government, he has run his timetable one to two years ahead and ordered an army with a scorched earth policy to remove the hot strip mill and the steel works at Clydesdale, so that none of that can be done in a year's time.
Mr. Stewart : Who would have funded that plan? The Government could not have done so because state aid for steel is closely circumscribed by European Community coal and steel regulations. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that a Labour Government would direct the steel industry and force it to invest against its commercial judgment, he
Column 500
should tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that that will be Labour's policy, so that he can make it clear to the City.Dr. Reid : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart : No, I must get on with the general debate. Scotland's steel industry has a long and honourable history. Together with other traditional industries such as shipbuilding and coal mining, it has attracted a deep attachment from the Scottish people. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised that the workers in the industry have served it well, and it is a matter of deep regret that they do not face a more promising future. However, the factors shaping that future do not lie entirely within the control of the company or the Government. International competition grows ever more intensive. In his positive speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) put the matter properly into perspective.
It is true that, since 1981, employment in British Steel and ECSC products has dropped by 45 per cent. But there has been an equivalent drop of 52 per cent. in France, 57 per cent. in Spain and 42 per cent. in the European Community generally. The whole industry has had to readjust to changing circumstances.
Mr. Dewar : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart : The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I should like to make a little more progress.
I emphasise the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). British Steel has been transformed from a company that made a loss of nearly £5 million of taxpayers' money a day into a profitable company. Its productivity has also been transformed. It must be right to allow British Steel to compete and to continue to put poor productivity and the subsidies of the past behind it.
Mr. Dewar : Will the Secretary of State explain his policy of asking help from other parts of the Government? I was at a meeting at which the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that his Department was making no efforts to help the campaign to save the Scottish steel industry because it had not been asked to do so by the Scottish Office. It is difficult to understand why, if the Scottish Office is as committed to the campaign as the Minister says, the Department of Trade and Industry--which is responsible for steel--was not being involved in the campaign because the Scottish Office had not specifically asked for its help.
Mr. Stewart : I assure the hon. Gentleman that the policies, statements and representations made by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State have had the full support of the whole Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to emphasise that the work force, faced with the proposal to close the hot strip mill, were entitled to as full an explanation as possible of the basis for that decision. My right hon. Friend and I have continually urged British Steel to release as much information as possible about the company's position, consistent with the need to safeguard commercially sensitive information. We
Column 501
have continually urged British Steel to consider fully and carefully any potential opportunities that might be identified in relation to their Scottish assets.The European Community's regional policy and how it relates to the sale of the hot strip mill has been discussed. I would tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that on 25 March Sir Leon Brittan told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Sir Robert Scholey had wrongly told the Select Committee that the Commission would object to the sale of the strip mill. The Secretary of State had written to Sir Robert Scholey on 20 March stating :
"You suggested earlier that the European Commission would object to that prospect"--
the sale of the hot strip mill--
"but I now understand that this is unlikely."
He then went on to ask the chairman of British Steel to reconsider his position in relation to the strip mill.
With regard to the plate strategy, I accept the deep sense of disappointment in Lanarkshire and Scunthorpe at British Steel's announcement on 1 July that the company was to invest in new plate facilities at Teesside. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was right to say, first, that the rest of that plant did not depend on the plate mill, so there was no reason why the rest of the plant should be affected significantly by the closure of the plate mill ; secondly, and more importantly, on the need to be positive. The creation of new jobs requires the development of new products, processes and markets. During the past decade, Scunthorpe has shown just how successfully diversification can be put into practice.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart : No, I do not have time.
I shall turn briefly to the Larnarkshire working group and the remedial measures that have been announced. I believe that those measures have received a good response in Lanarkshire, and that there is a spirit of co- operation and a willingness to try to ensure that they succeed.
I shall outline some of the figures that make up the £120 million which has been mentioned. Some £36 million was the initial allocation of Scottish Enterprise to the Lanarkshire development agency--as recently announced. I thought that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a positive suggestion in relation to the future role of the expertise that has been built up in East Kilbride development corporation, which we are examining. East Kilbride has £26 million. We can add the £28 million from the Department of Trade and Industry, through the iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefit scheme. Some £5 million extra was given by the Scottish Development Agency for sites purchased in 1991--a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. There is also the £15 million announced by the Prime Minister, and the £5 million allocated to Scottish Enterprise for
Column 502
Lanarkshire in 1991-92. Again, picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, there was £4 million for the Lanarkshire development agency for extra training and associated expenses, and the £4 million in extra capital consents to local authorities for factory building.This is what has been announced so far, and it constitutes a substantial commitment to Lanarkshire. The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that Lanarkshire will continue to have a high priority in future public expenditure decisions. We have commissioned a study on the upgrading of the A8 and have undertaken to consider the case for an enterprise zone. We have given a commitment to a new hospital. I believe that there will be a positive response from Lanarkshire to those positive proposals.
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : Not enough.
Mr. Stewart : The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is not enough, but it is a substantial commitment. I noticed that the Opposition did not promise any extra money under a Labour Government.
7.33 pm
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : This debate on the whole of the United Kingdom steel industry was triggered by the Select Committee's report. It is clearly a debate that will not conclude tonight, because the events with which it is concerned will not be concluded tonight. The evidence we took only little more than half a year ago about the projections for steel consumption in western Europe in particular have already been vitiated, and it looks as though the costs of reunifying eastern with west Germany will push interest rates still higher, or at least prevent them from falling as we would have wished. Therefore, the problems facing the management of every form of steel production and steel processing plant in western Europe will come under greater pressure. They will not be relieved of difficult decisions by an unexpected improvement in the demand for steel and steel products throughout western Europe.
The present afflictions that are hitting the rest of the world and the political uncertainties now in many of the export
markets--Yugoslavia is merely one case in point--are likely to lead to further postponements of investment in the steel industry in particular, because the demand for some of its products is likely to be postponed.
I imagine that the House will want to return to the extremely important subject of what continues to be one of the United Kingdom's most important industries.
The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
Column 503
Waiting Lists
[Relevant documents : The First Report from the Health Committee of Session 1990-91 on Public Expenditure on Health Services : Waiting Lists (House of Commons Paper No. 429-1) : the Government Reply to the First Report (Cm. 1586) and the Minutes of Evidence of the Welsh Affairs, Committee of Session 1990-91 (House of Commons Papers Nos. 390--i to iii).]
Class XIII, vote 1
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £9,962,627,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £162,196,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payments during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Health on hospital, community health, family health and family health service administration services, and on related services.-- [Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the next estimate on the Order Paper under class XVI, vote 8 :
That a further sum, not exceeding £697,400,000 and including a Supplementary Sum of £10,291,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on hospital, community health, family health (part) and family health service administration services and on related services.
7.36 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : I am pleased to initiate a debate this evening under class XIII, vote 1 and class XVI, vote 8 on waiting lists in the national health service and to enable the House to debate a report of the Select Committee on Health on waiting lists and waiting times.
Waiting lists for treatment have been a feature of the national health service since its inception in 1948. In a cash-limited system such as the NHS in the United Kingdom, waiting lists represent the main rationalising mechanism for reconciling supply and demand. While actual list sizes are of legitimate concern, not only to the House but to people outside, the more important issue is the time that people have to wait for their treatment. In theory, waiting lists are for only elective, non-emergency cases which are ordered in relation to a doctor's assessment of clinical priority. The lower the priority of an individual's condition, the longer that individual is likely to wait for treatment.
The most recent validated figures from the Department of Health show that at the end of September 1990 almost 750,000 people were waiting for in- patient admissions. In addition, slightly more than 210,000 people were waiting for day case admissions. In my view and that of the Select Committee on Health, strong measures are required to reduce those lists and, more importantly, to reduce the time that people have to wait for treatment.
The figures also show that, of all those waiting for treatment in September 1990, more than 200,000 people had been waiting for more than one year and more than 70,000 had been waiting for two years or more. Those are stark but important statistics.
Column 504
In its first report since being formally instituted in January this year, the Select Committee on Health described the potential consequences of long waiting times as follows :"People may lose their jobs as they may have to wait longer than their sick pay conditions entitle them to ; others may have to give up their jobs to look after a relative who is waiting for an admission ; some people may experience a further deterioration of complication in their conditions. This may add to eventual financial cost to the NHS as they may then require even greater levels of medical intervention."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health properly understands that. The report continues :
"People waiting for admissions represent a continuing cost to the health and social services : community nursing visits, prescription charges, sick pay, GPs' time, social support in people's homes all continue as the person waits."
We concluded in paragraph 6 :
"The human misery and financial cost of long waiting lists is impossible to quantify."
The Committee also found unacceptable variations in the size of lists and in the time that people had to wait for treatment, depending on which region, district, hospital, specialty or consultant a person was referred to. Those variations could not be explained by differences in need between different places. We therefore inquired into the steps that the Government are taking to reduce the size of NHS waiting lists and, more importantly, to reduce the time that people have to wait for treatment.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : When my hon. Friend's Committee considered the different factors that might have affected waiting lists in different areas, what investigation did it make into the quality of management in different health authorities?
Mr. Winterton : That is an important point and I hope to answer it in my speech. I am about to refer to it en passant in relation to my area. Perhaps good management has a part to play in reducing waiting lists. I refer first to the Mersey regional health authority. I do not always see eye to eye with its chairman, Sir Donald Wilson, but I must give him full credit for the excellent work that he and his staff in Mersey have done to achieve the lowest waiting lists in the country. He deserves congratulations on that.
I know rather more, however, about Macclesfield health authority than about Mersey. Macclesfield's waiting list record is one of the best in the Mersey region. I pay tribute to the district general manager, Mr. Bill Dobson, and to the chairman of the health authority, Mr. Peter Hayes, who has done an amazing job. I quote from the Macclesfield Express Advertiser :
"Health Minister, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, recently gave Mersey region credit for having done more to reduce its waiting lists than any other region, having no-one waiting more than two years". In Macclesfield we have gone one step further. According to Mr. Dobson,
" We now have only two people on our waiting lists who have been waiting longer than 18 months and I expect that figure to go down again very soon.' But there is no room for complacency We should continue to monitor waiting lists closely. Our next target is to have no one who has been on a waiting list for treatment in Macclesfield longer than 12 months."
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), good management did play an important part in Macclesfield in reducing waiting lists and waiting times, but I would not be allowed to get away with saying that without adding that, possibly in
Column 505
most areas, additional resources could also make a large contribution to further reductions in waiting lists and times. I should also pay tribute and express my thanks to our specialist adviser, Dr. Steve Engleman, for his help in this inquiry into waiting lists and times. I am also grateful to our specialist adviser Gregor Henderson who has done exceptionally good work for the Committee. The Committee is also grateful to Mr. John Yates of the university of Birmingham's Inter- Authority Comparisons and Consultancy for his frank and thoughtful evidence to the Committee. I do not think that we have ever been given such competent, informed, and well-researched evidence.The Government published their reply to our report on Tuesday 2 July, just two days ago. They said in their introduction : "The Committee's report makes a number of helpful comments on how waiting lists and times might be reduced. Most of these are firm policy : others are being considered carefully."
That is encouraging to the Select Committee and we are especially pleased that the Government have accepted 13 of our 22
recommendations.
There are five areas in our report and the Government's reply to it to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The first I call, "Leaving things to the district health authorities." The Government agree that the validation of waiting lists is a normal part of waiting list management, but in some circumstances extra resources may be required for information systems and clerical support to help some specialties to validate their lists effectively. These extra resources may not be easily identifiable from within a district budget. The Department should therefore give districts support to ensure that the people responsible for validating waiting lists do not start from a disadvantaged position.
We were pleased to see that the Department is encouraging the development of more day case work, but, as we pointed out in the report, a further shift of resources to more day case work will necessitate further strengthening of primary and community health care services. We look to the Department to ensure that its monitoring of health authorities is capable of assessing the implications of the shift to more day case work for primary and community care services.
Similarly, it is not enough to say that health authorities are responsible for the provision and organisation of services to meet the health needs of their resident populations when central help can be provided by the Department to help them in that task. For example, we believe that the Department should investigate the likely cost-effectiveness and impact on services, in both urban and rural areas, of providing out-patient clinics in different specialties in community and primary care settings. We call on the Government to fund assessments of cost-effectiveness in this area and then to disseminate the relevant experiences.
When we visited Huntingdon we found that consultant obstetricians from Hinchingbrooke hospital are conducting out-patient antenatal clinics in GPs' surgeries every week. Other districts can learn from such examples and then apply what is relevant to their local needs. Districts also need help in dealing with problems caused by the few consultants who, regrettably, do not pull their weight in their national health service work. Everyone is aware of the local effects of that and of the money wasted
Column 506
if a consultant is suspended while a long inquiry takes place. We recommend that the Department carry out a study to try to determine the influence that private practice in the same unit or specialty has on the time people have to wait for NHS treatment. Unfortunately, the Government rejected that recommendation as they were unsure of what it would achieve. They told us that it is up to the district health authority to ensure that consultants match their service contracts to their job plans. That, however, is a difficult task, since districts hold only consultants' job plans, not their service contracts--they are held by the region. Of course, trust hospitals employ their consultants directly. May I suggest to Ministers that consultants' service contracts in directly managed units be held by the hospitals concerned, not by the regions?The Select Committee of which we used to be part, the Social Services Select Committee, made that recommendation in more than one of its reports. I reiterate our recommendation that a study be carried out on the influence, if any, of private practice on waiting times. We believe that most doctors would welcome such a study. I should like to make one further point connected with the Government's reply to our conclusions on the effect of private medical practice. It concerns the Government's choice of words, and I quote from their response :
"Management is also responsible for ensuring that private practice does not, to a significant extent, interfere with the performance of the functions of the health service or disadvantage non-paying patients."
Surely that should read "to any extent". I should welcome an assurance on that.
The second area requiring immediate and careful attention is money. The Government rejected our calls for more resources to reduce waiting lists and times. The central allocation of money to this year's waiting list initiative was increased in cash terms in 1991-92 by £2 million--from £33 million to £35 million. Some £25.5 million of that will be paid to regions only if they achieve the targets that they have agreed with the NHS management executive. Regions have also to match the central contribution of £25.5 million pound for pound from their own resources. That effectively removes £25.5 million that could be spent by the regions on other services.
Targets have to be met before any money is paid up front, and there is a chance that central expenditure for 1991-92 on the waiting list initiative will not be as high as last year. An assurance about that would be helpful. Paying money only when targets are met reduces the perverse incentive for specialties to increase their lists to attract more money. It does not make adequate provision for paying money up front to help specialities reduce their lists in the first place. Our report recommends that some waiting list money should be kept aside to reward good practice. We made that recommendation after hearing the views of Mr. John Yates, whose work in reducing the worst waiting lists has rightly been commended by the Government and the Committee. Mr. Yates thinks that hospitals or specialties should be given an incentive--a good practice bonus for specialties or authorities that keep their lists down. We call that a preventive incentive scheme aimed at preventing waiting lists and waiting times from rising in the first place by rewarding those who manage their specialties effectively.
Column 507
Sadly, the Government's reply to our report failed to respond to that recommendation and I invite the Minister to respond in her winding-up speech. However, the Government's reply states that they are considering future initiatives for tackling waiting lists and times and their funding. We would welcome clarification about when we will know what those initiatives are and whether they will involve more resources which, as I said earlier, are necessary to deal with the problem. An announcement today about more resources to reduce waiting lists and times would be welcome news not only for the thousands of people on the waiting lists, but for doctors who are constantly required to arbitrate between patients with similar clinical needs, one of whom may be seen the following week while the other cannot be seen for six months or more.The third main area is that of extra-contractual referrals. I am confident that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) will have more to say on that matter if she speaks in the debate. The Committee heard evidence that where there are block contracts between health authorities and provider units and when the health authority has set aside a small reserve for extra- contractual referrals, GPs have a restricted choice about where to send patients.
A new sort of waiting list may be appearing consisting of patients who could be treated immediately outside their districts but who are having to wait for treatment, not because the hospital concerned cannot treat them immediately, but because their district health authority has not kept sufficient money in its back pocket to pay for that treatment in the current financial year. I hope that the NHS reforms will not simply replace one sort of waiting list with another.
The fourth area of concern to the Select Committee is the monitoring of NHS reforms and the information that will be made available. The Government responded to the Committee's concern that close and careful monitoring of the reforms should take place by citing the work of the six NHS sites which are working with the management executive on assessing the local impact of reforms. We all eagerly await some feedback on the lessons to be learnt from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Halton in my neck of the woods in Cheshire, St. Helens, Knowsley and Warrington, which is close to my area, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Wandsworth and West Dorset. When will those sites make their first reports to the management executive? The Committee was pleased to hear about the establishment of a joint NHS review committee with the general medical services committee. However, we are not sure of the purpose and authority of the committee that has been established. Will it monitor and evaluate the reforms, or will it be a forum only for raising and discussing issues that arise from the reforms? If it is to be the former, evaluation implies that a judgment will be made at the end of the exercise on whether the venture has been successful and is worth continuing in its present form. The Select Committee would welcome such an approach.
If that is to be the joint committee's purpose, what resources will be made available to it to enable it to carry out the required monitoring, research and evaluation? Further clarification of the Government's intentions in agreeing to the setting up of the new joint review
| Next Section
| Home Page |