I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 41, line 32, at end insert—

While I have no objection to what is proposed in paragraph (a) of the amendment, I must question whether the Opposition have considered the consequences and especially the cost of what is proposed in paragraph (b), which extends the remit of the 1983 Act to all patients, not only those who are detained under the Act. That must be at the expense of the patients to whom the Act applies. We are all aware of the challenges before the commission at present, in fulfilling its responsibility to patients who are detained, let alone extending the scope of the Act to those who are not.

The amendment is not any substitute for what is needed now: a complete review of the 1983 Act, which is now 13 years old. I do not think that the amendment is the way forward.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his last point. Indeed, we have said on occasions that in due course we shall consider that.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment, which raises a debate that we had at some length in Committee and in another place. Before even a permissive power is taken, the full implications need to be properly thought through, and proper consultation should take place. On that basis, it would not be right to accept the amendment.

I base my view on three factors. The first relates to the priorities for the use of the commission's resources. The commission was set up expressly to safeguard the interests of detained patients. Having been deprived of their liberty, they have a particular claim on the commission's protection. Any extension of its remit to other groups, whether now or in the future, must not be at its expense.

The second reason is connected with the fundamental changes that the commission is already facing. The commission is undergoing a major reorganisation of its structure and approach to its current remit, and that needs to be allowed to settle before an extension can be considered. Thirdly, it would make more sense to consider the commission's remit in relation to the operation of the Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is also suggesting. We shall want to consider that in due course, when it is possible to assess the impact of supervised discharge in the context of all the other initiatives that we have taken on the care of severely mentally ill people.

That does not mean that in the meantime the Mental Health Act Commission will have no locus at all in reviewing the use of the new power. Given its general responsibility to protect the rights of patients who are liable to be detained, it will be able to review the procedures for making a supervision application, since the patient at that point must be liable to be detained. The commission's involvement will be similar to its monitoring of section 117 aftercare procedures before a patient is discharged. The extension of the commission's remit in that area is certainly not ruled out for all time, but now is not the right time to be considering it. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

I add only to my opening remarks concerning the conclusion reached by the Mental Health Act Commission. In its public policy statement on the Bill, it said:

"Without some extension to the remit of the Commission to enable it to monitor the use of the new powers, and to ensure that the new statutory controls are only used strictly in accordance with statutory requirements, it considers both patients and community may not derive the full benefit from its provisions."

I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and welcomed his rather veiled undertaking to ensure that the commission keeps those matters under review. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) knows that Opposition Members have long called for a comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act 1983 for the reasons that he outlined. We remain committed to that review and, from what the Minister said, it sounded as if he was at last being persuaded of the need for it.

In the light of the Minister's rather tentative assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Bill was primarily motivated by the public concern about the plight of people with serious mental illness who are discharged into the community. The plight of such patients has been highlighted by a series of terrible incidents, a disturbing number of which have resulted in fatalities.

Stephen Laudat stabbed and killed a man in 1994, only eight months after being discharged from a psychiatric department. Jason Mitchell was discharged by consultants and within days had killed his father and an elderly couple—also in 1994. John Rous, a paranoid schizophrenic, killed an untrained volunteer hostel worker, Jonathan Newby, in Oxford in 1993. Christopher Clunis, a patient who had been in and out of psychiatric and social services care for most of his life, stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito on the London underground in 1992. Peter Robak, suffering from a severe personality disorder, killed Anthony and Barbara Rawlings and their 15-year-old son just 11 days after being discharged from hospital in 1990.

Those cases show the dangers that are posed to members of the public by a very small number of severely mentally ill people who develop serious personality disorders. We are united with the Government in wanting to see better care for such patients and better protection for the public. The inquiries and reports that followed the tragedies tell us what action could have been taken to prevent the killings. They also make a number of clear recommendations concerning the implementation of the policy of caring for mentally ill patients in the community.

The literature is plentiful: the Ritchie report on the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis; the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Boyd report on homicides and suicides among the mentally ill; the Audit Commission's report "Finding a Place"; "The Falling Shadow", a report by Louis Blom-Cooper and others into the events surrounding the killing of Georgina Robinson; and the 1994 report of the Select Committee on Health into community care for people with serious mental illness.

In each case, the authors point to the same problems: lack of liaison among care agencies, and lack of resources to provide care and treatment in psychiatric departments and in the community, which is particularly serious in deprived inner-city areas. There have also been failures to act on warning signals, sometimes with terrible and tragic results. Every report recommends improvement in those areas as a top priority.

Those are the recommendations that the House should consider, and upon which the Government should have acted when they drafted the Bill. They are recommendations which, if taken up, would both provide better care for severely mentally ill patients and allay public concern about safety.

However, the Government have ignored the recommendations. Instead of listening to expert opinion and learning from the mistakes of the past, they have succeeded in drafting a Bill that misses the point, is unpopular with those who work in mental health and will do nothing to improve patient care. Indeed, it could well make matters worse. The Bill fails to take the action desperately needed to improve the care provided for the small proportion of severely mentally ill patients who pose a potential danger to themselves or to members of the public.

A new concept of supervised discharge is the central proposal in the Bill. Supervision orders are to be made in respect of a patient who would represent

"a substantial risk of serious harm"

to himself or herself or to others. A supervision order will last initially for six months, and subsequently for periods of a year at a time.

As part of an agreed aftercare programme, people under supervision may be required to reside at a specific place or to attend for occupation, education or training. A supervisor, who must be a person professionally involved in the patient's care, will be appointed to monitor the supervision order.

Many people will hear that and think it a good idea. Some patients need extra support and attention while recovering from treatment for serious mental illness, especially if they have a tendency not to comply with their care programme. But such a form of aftercare supervision already exists, and it is known as a guardianship order.

Many people who work in mental health community care are at a loss to understand the need for a completely new order when the existing power of guardianship offers an almost identical provision. Although it is used rarely, perhaps because of the strain that it puts on scarce resources, guardianship is effective in the small number of cases in which some form of statutory supervision is required. It facilitates community care, while offering protection to the patient.

The key difference between a guardianship order and the proposed supervision order is contained in the Bill's most controversial and most strongly opposed proposal—the power to take and convey. The need for a power to convey a person under supervision to a place of treatment, training, education or residence specified under the terms of the supervision order is highly questionable. I do not understand how such a power, which may be exercised by anyone nominated by the patient's supervisor, is appropriate to a co-operative and humane approach to community care.

If the power is exercised against a patient's will, it is highly unlikely to encourage compliance with his or her treatment plan. There is also a danger that the coercive elements of the new arrangements will compromise the important relationship of trust that should exist between patients and carers. It is important to emphasise the fact that one cannot care for people in a community environment without some consent and trust between the person being supervised and the supervisor.

The power to take and convey has been opposed by many groups and organisations, including the Law Society, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, MIND, the British Association of Social Workers, the Mental Health Foundation, the Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, SANE, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, Survivors Speak Out and Liberty.

In Committee, the Minister failed to make the case for the power to take and convey, and several hon. Members have shown their opposition to it by signing early-day motion 1487. The power constitutes a significant erosion of civil liberties, with no conceivable benefit to patients.

The Bill allows the patient's supervisor to nominate any other person or agency to take and convey the patient. The supervisor does not have to obtain any additional authority before delegating the power. The application of the existing provisions for "arrest" laid down in sections 6 and 137 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is subject to strict criteria and numerous safeguards made clear in the code of practice. That code contains guidelines for best practice and sets out the rights of patients, and the responsibilities of care professionals to safeguard those rights—safeguards that are absent from the Bill as it stands.

We had hoped that the Minister would accept the widening of the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission to include patients receiving after-care under supervision. That would have reduced the likelihood of the power to take and convey being abused, or used to reinforce worst rather than best practice. The idea was backed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Law Society, MIND and a range of other organisations, including the commission itself, so it is disappointing that the Minister has rejected it.

The Minister has not been consistent about how the power will work. In another place Baroness Cumberlege said:

"Clearly this power to convey would be used only in times of emergency."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 1995; Vol. 563, c. 156.]

That begs two questions. What constitutes an emergency? And what kinds of emergency does the Minister believe are not already covered by sections 6 and 137 of the 1983 Act?

The Minister suggested that the power would be used in different circumstances. He told the Committee:

"We are providing for a reserve power, as it were, which would be available to the supervisor of that small group of vulnerable and sometimes unpredictable patients, in order to overcome a temporary unwillingness to co-operate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 July 1995; c. 94.]

Baroness Cumberlege said that the power would be used only in emergencies, yet the Minister said that it would be used to overcome temporary unwillingness to co-operate. The two sets of circumstances are different. So nobody will know how or when the power is to be exercised. Perhaps in this final stage, before the Bill reaches the statute book, the Minister will be able to dispel the confusion and make a final and authoritative statement on when the Government intend the power to take and convey to be exercised.

It is all the more important that the Minister makes such a statement, because the Bill is silent about what will happen once the patient has been taken and conveyed to the specified place. It appears that he cannot be forced to stay there against his will, and it is difficult to see how an unwilling patient, who has probably been further aggravated by being taken and conveyed, can be forced to take part in occupation, education, training, or whatever else he is supposed to do.

The threat will undermine the relationship of trust that must exist between carer and patient. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) referred to the views of the registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Professor Chris Thomson. In an article in the British Medical Journal, Dr. Nigel Eastman, the head of forensic psychiatry at St. George's medical school, expressed even stronger reservations about the power to take and convey:

"A highly detrimental therapeutic effect is likely to arise from community psychiatric nurses forcing unwilling patients into their cars and taking them to day centres or hospitals where they are then asked to take treatment that they have (presumably) already refused."

We believe that the proposition is unworkable.

In introducing the Bill, the Government have acknowledged that community care for the seriously mentally ill is not working effectively. We are united on that point. However, they have not realised the scale of the problem, nor identified the solutions correctly. Coercion is not a substitute for co-ordination and co-operation. Statutory powers are no substitute for well-resourced and focused community care. As a consequence, the Bill will not achieve in practice what it sets out to achieve.

I welcome the Bill in its final form, as does the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. We are grateful for the fact that many of our amendments have been accepted. I should also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State's pre-emptive response in August to the recent report of the social services inspectorate and the clinical standards advisory group, when he called on health authorities to get their act together in three months, to bridge the gap between the theory of community care for the mentally ill and the reality, when it falls short.

That stark reality was brutally exposed by last month's report of the Woodley inquiry into the death of Stephen Laudat, to which the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred. Woodley recommended better co-operation between health authorities and social services, the provision of more day centres, better training in risk assessment and management and a complete avoidance of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless mentally ill people. All those recommendations echo long-standing concerns of the fellowship—to which I would add the need for a wider recognition of mental disability as well as physical disability in the benefits and allowances that are available for the disabled.

The implementation of this legislation will undoubtedly assist the care programme approach to the mentally ill, by providing more powers and greater flexibility for the supervision of discharged patients. I fear, however, that it will serve only to highlight further the shortfall of psychiatrists and key workers, whose case loads just do not allow enough time for their patients.

Still, although the Bill represents no substitute for a complete review of the 1983 Act, which was conceived against the background of a bygone age for the mentally ill, I welcome the fact that the Minister has confirmed again this evening that the Government are giving thought to a review of the Act. The Bill confirms that the community care approach to the mentally ill is here to stay, and I look forward to the undoubted contribution that the Bill will make to public safety, which must always be paramount.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said a few moments ago that coercion is not a substitute for co-operation. Bearing in mind the job to which he is moving in a few months' time, I am sure that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends will remind him of that statement. I can think of no one better than the hon. Gentleman to replace the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)—and if the hon. Gentleman uses the power to take and convey as effectively as the hon. Member for Jarrow has done, he will be a great success.

This is an important Bill, but I share some of the worries expressed about it by hon. Members on both sides, most recently by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). The Government will get their legislation. Certainly, they could not afford to ignore some of the terrible tragedies to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East rightly referred. But I do not think that this is the right measure; I remain to be convinced that it is. The Government's argument was probably the best they could muster in the circumstances.

I commend the Minister's handling of the Bill throughout its stages, but I sincerely hope that he will take away certain clear messages from the whole process. One is that the opportunity should have been taken fundamentally to review and reform the Mental Health Act. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) say that Labour would give the subject priority in the new Parliament, should it have any influence in it. And I know the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) well enough to know that, when we have a Scottish Parliament, it will be high on our agenda there, too. I hope, in the meantime, that the Minister—or his successor—will not forget the undertaking that he has given. The urgent need for reform has been expressed by many pressure groups and by hon. Members of all parties, and I hope that the Government will tackle it constructively.

As I said on Second Reading, I still feel that we need to deal with the problems not so much of the high-profile tragic cases as of the people who might commit suicide or engage in self-neglect, who make up the vast burden of the cases with which the professionals have to deal. I do wonder whether the Bill will help them; I remain sceptical whether it will. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East listed some of the professional bodies that remain unconvinced as well.

It is not a shortage of powers that is the problem: it is a shortage of resources. We need more appropriate accommodation and more employment, training and recreational resources. That is not to say that a blank cheque should be offered, but these are the sort of issues that we would have liked to hear more about from the Department during the passage of the Bill.

I also fear that there will be a diversion of resources within the provision of mental care and the treatment of mental illness, owing to the new Act. I hope that the Minister will look into that carefully and that, if he finds evidence of people having to divert resources from other equally urgent needs in the treatment of mental illness, he will respond urgently. Moreover, I cannot help but think that the Bill will impose a new raft of responsibilities, of a kind that the Government have not foreseen, on mental health nurses.

More than anything else, the Bill is a lost opportunity. We shall give the Minister his Bill; in return he must monitor it carefully, and not use it as a substitute for a thoroughgoing reform in the future.

I want to ask just one question: why has the Bill caused so much disquiet in communities that include many mentally ill people or people who have suffered from mental illness at some stage but have been restored to good health? The power to take and convey is responsible for that disquiet, yet it is clear from the Bill that it can be applied only to limited numbers of cases. It is certainly clear, judging by the cases cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, that it is necessary to have powers to protect the public; but the concern is much more widespread than just among those to whom the Bill may apply.

There are many people on what I might term the fringes of mental illness. They may have spent some time in an institution but have since been integrated fairly well back in the community. But they still entertain uncertainties at the back of their minds about these powers—they trouble them. Surprisingly, perhaps, certain groups of people have been anxious for a change in the powers without really having understood them.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that there has been no satisfactory response on the issue of the Mental Health Commission. It could perhaps have been a voice of independence, but there has been no movement on that. People have therefore concluded that there has once again been a lack of consultation and that the Government have been unwilling to compromise on the detail. That only adds to people's fears. There are many people to whom the Minister does not intend this measure to apply, but they still harbour fears—perhaps because at times in the past they have been unable to control their behaviour. They therefore suspect that the Bill's powers might ultimately be applied to them.

There is a second reason for the disquiet that the Bill has caused. It would be fine if the people whom I have described were set to gain something from the Bill, but it is, as others have said, a lost opportunity. It does not tackle the real problems of community care for the mentally ill. When the Bill was first presented it became clear that it would be unaccompanied by additional resources. One recognises that now limited additional resources have been provided, but those resources have understandably been directed to a small minority of mentally ill patients because the Bill focuses on them. However, the Bill contains nothing for the vast majority of people.

The Mental Health Foundation has produced a list of the needs of mentally ill people. It says that they need an appropriate place to live, an adequate income, a varied social life, employment and other day activity, help and support, respect and trust, choice and consultation. All those are absent from the Bill. The Audit Commission report made clear how important was a secure place to live for mentally ill people. The Bill does not tackle that issue. The people who have expressed their fears to me feel that they have lost something. They are uncertain about their ultimate freedom in certain circumstances, but they feel that they have gained nothing from the Bill. What is more, the Bill has been accompanied by a squeeze on the benefits system, which has hit some of the same people who will not benefit from the Bill.

I launched a report in the House some months ago for the Matthew Trust. I am sure that the Minister has seen the document. It contained a list of cases and individuals. Amounts such as £25 or £70 can make an enormous difference to such people, but the benefits system somehow misses them out. People fall through the safety net. A new power is being introduced with which they are unhappy. Their real problems are not dealt with. The squeeze on Government funding and benefits makes their circumstances even more adverse.

Many of the people to whom I have spoken feel that there is discrimination against people who have mental illness. They have certain difficulties if they live in the community without support. People taunt them. Their appearance may be a little unusual. They feel that there is no anti-discrimination legislation in place to protect people who have mental illness, although legislation exists to protect against discrimination on the basis of race or gender.

People feel that the Bill threatens their freedom even though, looking at it rationally, we might say that it does not. I have tried to explain that to some of the people with whom I deal, but they do not want to see the measure on the statute book and they would like to see changes.

The Bill is a lost opportunity, but in a sense it is more than that. The Government have been intransigent on some of the matters that have been raised. Even if in practice those matters make no difference to mentally ill people, that intransigence is seen as a definite Government programme which could just include them. It is hard to bring rational thinking to people who have such fears.

We have seen papers which support the legislation and argue that the provision of transport is a good thing. One can talk to people along those lines, but one cannot convince them that the measure does not provide an all-powerful body with a power that could reach down and touch them in their communities.

The Bill is a lost opportunity. I am glad that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said that a thorough review of the Mental Health Act 1983 will take place under a Labour Government. I hope that proper resources will be provided for the mentally ill in our community because the need is certainly great.

In the earlier debate on the new clause, I drew attention to the criticisms of the Bill in the Woodley report published last month on the killing of Bryan Bennett by Stephen Laudat in Newham. The critical point is that the Bill does nothing to provide desperately needed additional resources for mental health care. As several hon. Members have said, the Bill could make matters worse.

I have received a letter from Dr. Ruth Taylor, a Newham GP, in which she commented on some of the criticisms levelled by the Woodley report at a Newham psychiatrist referred to in the report as Dr. B. She says:

"In 1993 three consultant psychiatrists covered the Newham population of 230,000. Dr. B covered a population of 90,000—approximately three times that recommended by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. She carried this burden for ten years … Help was requested from the management of the psychiatry services … but none was forthcoming. In 1992 the general manager and chief executive were warned in writing by the Newham consultants … that their excessive workload made their standards of practice unsafe. No effective change was brought about to alleviate the problem … when professionals are given an impossible workload, disasters are daily waiting to happen."

That is the reality of mental health care and the Bill does nothing to help. The family of Mr. Bennett are angry. The family of Mr. Laudat, the perpetrator, are angry. The system failed for both of them and it must be radically reviewed, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said.

Things are getting worse. The health authority and local authority in my area, despite shocking reductions in their funding, have managed to set aside additional resources for mental health care next year in the light of the Woodley report, but East London and City health authority projects a £7 million deficit next year. The Woodley report highlights the need for extra resources in east London to avoid more incidents such as the one to which I have referred. So why is it proposed to withdraw large sums of money from the district health authority?

That is asking for disaster. I urge the Minister to ensure that those threatened draconian cuts to the East London and City budget do not go ahead.

There is growing anger in east London on mental health matters. On Sunday, several hundred people attended a festival organised by the Newham needs campaign to highlight the problems of inadequate funding for health services in Newham. Fifty-nine people sent electronic mail messages of protest to the Prime Minister and many more sent postcards to the Secretary of State.

Another matter raised by the Woodley report has not been picked up by the Bill. Recommendation 5.20 of the report recommends that

"the Department of Health harmonise guidance on Section 117 registers, proposed Supervision registers, and the Care Programme Approach with Community Care Assessment and Care Management in respect of people who have a severe mental illness and their carers. Such guidance should include clarification of clinical, management and practitioner responsibilities and the importance of choice by the service user in who their psychiatrist or key worker is to be for the purposes of sustaining a therapeutic relationship."

That guidance is urgently needed. It has been discussed for a considerable period. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that it will soon be issued?

Great efforts are being made in Newham jointly by the health authority and the local authority to learn the lessons of the report. A detailed joint action plan has been drawn up. My plea to the Minister is at least to stop taking resources away from east London and other areas like it, which is what is proposed for the health authority and the local authority for next year. This cannot go on. I urge the Minister to act to change things for the better.

The Bill faces in two directions—backwards to the 1983 Act to correct serious anomalies and forward to the new challenges that community care must face. Very rarely is mental health legislation debated on the Floor of the House. It is complex and often controversial. It involves careful balancing of many interests. It raises issues of personal liberty and professional accountability. It touches on the responsibility of public services to provide adequate and effective care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The law is only one, of a number of influences that must be engaged for good community care to work in practice. The others are the services themselves, the skills and competence of professionals responsible and, of course, ministerial guidance to authorities on the nature and extent of their duties and to professionals on their practice. It is the role of Government and Government alone to determine the respective importance of each of those influences and to orchestrate their working together.

Public confidence in community care has been badly shattered by recent highly publicised tragedies and that adds a new context to our consideration of legal and policy changes in the area. We can no longer discuss and decide such issues beyond the public's view. For a new contract of trust to be forged with the public, services need to be in place, together with an effective legislative framework, enabling people with mental illness to be properly contained and treated when they are a risk to themselves or to others.

As drafted, the Bill will be unfair and probably unworkable. Where it needs to be certain and unambiguous, it remains unclear and open to wide and varied interpretation. The Bill needed to gain the confidence of those who will experience added restriction and interference when placed under supervision. It can do so by providing clear and effective rights and entitlements to services, but it offers nothing new—nothing more than the present vague and unenforceable section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The picture painted by recent reports on mental health services suggests that Ministers have profound and persistent illusions, or indeed delusions, about the real world in which people with mental illness and those who care for them have to cope. Certainly, we see little sign of a system in practice in which the guarantees and assurances made by Ministers are on offer.

The Bill needed to win the support of hard-pressed health and social services professionals. It has failed to do so. It merely imposes on them heavy legal and personal responsibilities and furthermore suggests that services to some patients will have to be reduced or discontinued to meet the needs of patients being targeted as a result of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will assure us when he sums up that no one receiving services will have them taken away to enable such targeting.

The Bill should recognise the need for fairness and equity in the use of coercive powers such as "take and convey". It can do so by making professionals clearly accountable when they use them. As we discussed, the Bill omits important checks and balances. Enhancing the role of the Mental Health Act Commission would be a step towards doing that.

The Minister should be encouraging the use of existing powers and legal provisions, such as guardianship. Such an aim should be shaping the contents of the new legislation. Instead, as part of the Government's piecemeal approach to tinkering with what is largely obsolete legislation, they intend to create unnecessary and confusing additional powers.

Many organisations that represent professional staff who will have to use the Bill and those who will be made subject to it have also voiced their concern. They include the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, the Mental Health Foundation, the National Association for Mental Health—MIND—and Survivors Speak Out. The support and confidence of such organisations are essential for this legislation to succeed.

I frequently listen and talk to people who are in touch with and using community care services. For five years I was a member of the Mental Health Act Commission and for 13 years I was assistant director of MIND. All the accounts force us to the same conclusion that we find when reading the recent flood of reports on community care—the Ritchie report on Christopher Clunis, those of the Mental Health Foundation, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and the Audit Commission and now those of the social services inspectorate and the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, which were published in the summer. They tell us that the crisis affecting care in the community has little to do with the law and much to do with the attitudes, skills and resources of professionals and the very limited community opportunities available to those with enduring and intractable mental health problems. To the extent that problems result from the present state of the law, they will not be addressed by the limited and unambitious measure that we have been debating.

Before concluding, I must remind the House of the contents of the report that led to this Bill. It was the Department of Health's internal review of legal powers on the care of mentally ill people in the community, which was published in August 1993. It presented the Government with their options for legal change in that area and the principles that should provide the framework for any change. The report said:

"if … a new power is introduced it is absolutely essential that account is taken in framing it of the criticisms and fears expressed by many of those who gave evidence to us, and that it is applied in such a way as to minimise the dangers they foresaw".

The review also offered a series of principles to frame the new power. It said that the power should be applied so as to ensure the least restrictive form of care consistent with safe management; that it must have adequate safeguards to ensure appropriate use; that it must be so defined as to minimise the risk of its being wrongly applied to patients who do not need this form of legal constraint; and that it must not discriminate in principle or in practice against particular ethnic or other groups. It also said that it must be recognised that the use of the power implies a reciprocal obligation on the statutory services to provide the support that the patient needs.

We take the Government back to those principles when judging the legislation before us. They must stand judged by their refusal to accommodate in the legislation the principles emanating from their own review.

The Bill was an opportunity to rebuild the contract of trust, which is the essential foundation of community care, between the patient, families, professionals and the public. The Government have failed to take that opportunity and it will now fall to a new Government—a Labour Government—to introduce a new mental health Act, to inspire and recreate that contract of trust.

I am tempted to say, "Are you sure?" to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). I suppose that I should be flattered. I do not know if it is a parliamentary record for two Opposition spokesmen to have to contribute to the same debate to balance a Minister. I appreciate the fact that I am to be balanced and that this is a subject on which we need balance. I also appreciate that, recently, the Leader of the Opposition had to stand in to help out the spokesman on the shadow Home Affairs team, but I have never before heard of a spokesman standing in to help out a leader, which is what we have seen today.

The House has given the Bill the thoughtful, thorough and critical attention that it deserves. Despite the rather sad little speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich, I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to our discussions at all stages. They have been good, constructive and, on the whole, good-humoured debates.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office and his team have worked closely with us to draw up a package of measures that will ensure that some of the most vulnerable patients receive the follow-up care that they need. That is in the interests of the patients, their families, their professional and informal carers and their local communities.

The introduction of supervised discharge and community care orders is complemented in the Bill by provisions on leave of absence and absence without leave. The scrutiny in both Houses has refined and improved the Bill. Our mental health legislation has evolved over many years and will continue to do so. That is a pledge that I can certainly make to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). We shall be studying carefully how the new powers are used alongside the existing power of guardianship, but for now we are committed to acting positively to help patients, their carers, families and the professionals responsible for providing services and personal support.

I should add that this Bill brings to an end the time of yet another Opposition Front Bench health team. As they take their bow and leave the stage, rather like the Von Trapp family in "The Sound of Music"—perhaps the Trappist connotation is appropriate in the case of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)—I wish them well in their new roles.

I believe that these measures will strengthen the care and support of vulnerable people with severe mental health problems. The Bill must be seen in the context of all the investment in services, hospitals and the community that has brought new hope to mentally ill people and their families. We stand four-square behind them and behind the community as a whole, which rightly demands this strengthened level of care and supervision. I commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to move,

That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.

Last year, I had to make a somewhat lengthy speech to explain the complications arising from the freeze that had earlier taken place. This year, I think that I can explain the position simply and clearly. During the debate on Members' salaries in 1993, two years ago, I made it clear to the House that the Government thought that the right course thereafter was for the salaries of Ministers to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as those of Members. That arrangement has been applied for the past two years and is straightforwardly the basis of the proposed increases for 1996.

As the House will recall, the annual increase in Members' salaries is linked to the pay settlement for civil servants in grades 5 to 7. That means that Members of Parliament will receive an increase of 2.7 per cent. on 1 January without the need for parliamentary action. Because the proposals follow established policy, there is no need for me to go into detail except perhaps to say that the increase for Ministers in this House will be 2.7 per cent., precisely in line with the Members' figure. For our colleagues in the other place, because they do not have a reduced parliamentary salary, the increase is equivalent to the overall cash increase received by their counterparts at this end of the building.

I should remind the House, and with more force than usual in view of the events of the past hour, that the order covers not only Ministers but the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Opposition Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip in the Commons, and one other Commons Opposition Whip together with the Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords, and, of course, Madam Speaker. Additionally, though they not covered by the order, you will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the same increases will be paid to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and to the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees in the other place.

I say in the friendly spirit with which I address the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that I might be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to confine the increase in respect of the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip to the present rather than the prospective holder of the post. That might be attractive, were I in that frame of mind, after the speech that the hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago. Some observations have probably already been made on that. When he finally becomes Deputy Chief Whip and sits two seats along the Bench from where he is now, he would have public executions of hon. Members who spoke at the length that he did in the previous debate. Nevertheless, it was a fascinating speech.

The policy of a clear automatic linkage for Members of Parliament which is then straightforwardly carried through by order to Ministers and others has provided us with a mechanism that has meant that for the past two years we have been able to settle these matters without substantial controversy. The proposals in the order are sensible and right. I commend them to the House.

I do not wish to detain the House because this is a repeat of last year's debate. The right hon. Gentleman rightly listed some of the posts included in the order. It goes without saying that the most deserving cases in the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are, of course, those of yourself and your colleagues in the Chair.

I was expecting that the order would be the same, word for word, as last year's order and that only the figures would be different. This is the only detailed question that I have for the Leader of the House. The order is not the same, word for word, because two words are missing from paragraph 2. I do not understand why the words "of salary" have been Snopaked out of this order.

As the Leader of the House said, the increase is 2.7 per cent., the same as for Back Benchers. That is based on civil service grades 5 to 7, which, I regret to say, have been separated. Therefore, in 1996 some other arrangements will have to be made for Members of Parliament whereas I thought that we had a formula and had put the matter to bed. It appears that we have not.

It is right that the salary arrangements for Ministers should be dealt on the same basis as those of other hon. Members. That being so, I regret the need for this debate. We are not debating Members' pay having agreed a formula such as that which has produced the 2.7 per cent. increase.

In last year's debate, on 24 November 1994, I offered the Leader of the House the chance to secure Opposition support to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 so as to provide the same automatic linkage for Ministers that applies to hon. Members. I have since repeated that offer to the Leader of the House. It should have been taken up. A Labour Government will legislate to clear up the anomaly. If it is not done before the general election, it will have to be done afterwards. It is an utter waste of parliamentary time, bearing in mind that we have dealt with the matter in respect of hon. Members.

It has been a tough year for Ministers, as the chickens from the false promises made in 1992 have come home to roost. On the other hand, this year the Ministers who will receive this salary increase have had their loyalty tested by the Prime Minister when he put his leadership on the line. They have ended up with a powerful Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) can well manage on a Cabinet Minister's salary. I am surprised that the order, listing in detail as it does different Ministers by title as members of the Cabinet, does not refer to a First Secretary of State or a Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Cabinet but is not listed.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has his own special arrangements for official cars; he does not have one but is paid to use his own. He has not done well at answering questions at the Dispatch Box. All we have had from him so far is party-political rants. Who should pay him—the taxpayer or the Tory party? We are not sure whether he is a second Minister Without Portfolio or the Minister with the good bits of everyone's portfolios. In due course, he will answer for himself, as will other Ministers, to the electorate.

I agree that to participate in public life is both a duty and a privilege. Very high standards of conduct are expected and standards for Ministers are rightly higher than those for others. Notwithstanding the Nolan report, which the Opposition fully support, I believe that Ministers are honourable people carrying out a responsibility placed on them by the Prime Minister of the day. We may not agree with all their actions; we may believe that many of them do not care, are incompetent and out of touch. The answer is to replace them, not deny them a modest increase in pay.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out that there have been some improvements in the mechanism for dealing with Members' and Ministers' pay. I feel bound to say that if one takes a long-term view of the way in which we have dealt with those matters, we are now in a situation that can be described only as a crisis.

Since I first came to the House some 30 years ago, the statistics show that Members' pay in real terms, allowing for inflation, is just back to where it was 30 years ago. Between then and now, it has been below that level, sometimes by a substantial amount. Meanwhile, real incomes in the country as a whole on average have gone up 80 per cent. Members' pay has not gone up at all.

Even more remarkable, and this is relevant to the motion, is what has happened to Ministers' pay and indeed to the Prime Minister's pay. They are paid less than half what people in the Government were paid when I came to the House 30 years ago. That, too, has happened against a background in which the real income of the country as a whole has risen by 80 per cent.

The situation is creating a serious recruitment problem. One cannot divorce the issue of Members' pay from that of Ministers' pay because in our system, unlike that of the United States, for example, where the Executive is drawn from outside the legislature, we have to get people into the House of Commons or House of Lords in order to recruit Ministers. So the level of both Ministers' and Members' pay is relevant in this context. An article in today's edition of The Times rounded up the figures, but I suggest that we would need to double Members' pay and treble the Prime Minister's and Ministers' pay to get us back to approximately where we were 30 years ago. If we do not take such a once-and-for-all step, the quality of hon. Members and those fit to become Ministers will become an increasing problem.

Top salaries outside the House have risen even more. The papers talk every day of "fat cats". Let us look at salaries that, in many ways, are not exceptional. I know from personal experience not so long ago that, if one wants to recruit a good finance director for a public liability company in a risky industry—no one can deny that politics is a risky industry in terms of remaining a Member of Parliament or a Minister—one will probably have to pay £250,000. A good chief executive would have to be paid some £500,000. Meanwhile, this order increases the Prime Minister's salary at £82,000 by £1,500. It is preposterous.

We must deal not just with the question of pay. I announced a little while ago, following some totally irrational boundary changes and various other matters, that I would not stand at the next election, so I may be in a stronger position than present Ministers or those who will stand at the next election to make this point. Many people have said that the status of Members is not what it was when I was first elected and, alas, that is true.

Reference was made to the Nolan committee. I can say nothing about that because I sit on the Select Committee that is seeing how its recommendations might be implemented, but I hope that it will do something to restore the standing of Members and that the measures that we have already taken will do so. That is another problem that we must take into account.

We must consider carefully what should be done. I am particularly worried that the salary now paid to Members is not sufficient to attract the sort of person that used to be attracted here—those with a good degree, someone who has been president of a union or who has a similar background in some other field. They are no longer attracted here because they can earn more than hon. Members in two years after university, and, in some occupations, more than the Prime Minister in five years.

Another real change is that Ministers currently in office decide that they will not go on. Previously, ex-Ministers remained in the House for one, two or three Parliaments. I can think of a number of hon. Friends who are still here, and it is true of myself. But that will no longer happen. Few ex-Ministers are recycled, so they will take the first available opportunity to leave the House at the next general election. The people on whom we rely to man Select Committees, to engage in debate on the Floor of the House and give experience, will simply no longer be here. That is a worrying development.

What should be done? We know only too well from the misrepresentations of the increase in Members' pay before the last one, when the press said that it was vastly in excess of inflation—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out at the time that that was untrue—that there would be an outcry in the press if Members' salaries were doubled. But we have reached a stage where we must face up to that. We have two possible options. First, as the Nolan committee seems to have remarkable public approval as an independent body, we could refer the question of Ministers' and Members' pay to that body as soon as possible. Secondly, we could ensure that negotiations take place between the two sides of the House on what should be done in the next Parliament. We can do nothing in. this Parliament, but if we were to do something now for the next Parliament, we would at least help to deal with the argument that we were voting for our next pay increase, and the electorate would know where it was.

I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has decided not to take his pay increase. I notice that some Labour Front-Bench Members did not know that that was so. This is similar to some of the worst excesses of Thatcherism, when the previous Prime Minister refused to take her full salary. That was a serious mistake and I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be following in Mrs. Thatcher's footsteps in that respect. I hope that, on reflection, he will give further thought to the matter because we must reach an agreement across the House about what should be done to introduce a once-and-for-all change to redress the balance.

This is now an extremely serious issue. Although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that we can introduce a pay rise now on this basis without it arousing controversy, there is a distinction between having no controversy and ignoring a potentially serious problem.

I have listened to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) make exactly that speech on a number of occasions, and it gets more compelling with the listening. He makes a powerful case and is in a strong position to do so. I support everything that he said. We now have an opportunity to get a hold of the problem and make matters more realistic before the next Parliament. That would be the proper and honourable way to proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman's idea of referring the matter to a Nolan-type inquiry ignores top salary pay review reports.

They were all ignored.

If the matter goes to the Nolan committee and is not ignored, that would be a massive improvement, which may be why the right hon. Gentleman makes that suggestion. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the number of hours that the Select Committee has spent examining the Nolan committee's recommendations. It is a sobering thought that the Nolan inquiry would not have been necessary if Members' and Ministers' salaries had been proper and commensurate with normal market salaries.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was right to stress that this order is ludicrous and otiose. It is certainly so as far as I am concerned. The Leader of the House will recognise that, as a member of a minority party, I have no financial interest whatever in this or any other such order. I am shop steward and I do all the hard work for all the minority parties. I do not mind that. It is a great public duty, which I enjoy doing.

Is the hon. Gentleman confirming that the Liberal Democrat party does not expect to form the next Government?

I shall not be tempted to answer such an unfair question. It was a monstrous attack, and it was out of character for the Leader of the House to suggest any such thing to such a humble person as myself. I have written the Leader of the House a letter, which he may not yet have received. It does not necessarily offer him a position in my Government but asks him to consider helping the process of the usual channels. That is a separate issue. The important point that the hon. Member for Perry Barr made is that we should use the fast track procedures to get rid of this order altogether. That would save the House time and we would all be the better for it.

Many hon. Members are confused about the new way in which Members' and Ministers' salaries are linked with those of civil servants because there has been a revolution in how the civil service is paid since the introduction of performance-related remuneration and job regrading. I am pleased to see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for those matters, is in his place. I do not know how it will be possible to achieve a sensible link in future. That reinforces my view that a senior salary pay review body or a Nolan-type committee should investigate the matter so that we can prepare recommendations for the next Government to apply in the next Parliament. They can then take effect properly and with a minimum amount of controversy. However, I accept that there will be controversy and I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing that we should confront that and take part in it positively and robustly.

I want to ask a genuine question—I do not make a party political point. Given the obvious change that there has been in the power of agencies and given the number of agencies that are now spawned by Ministers, then if we are to have very small policy units with Ministers in charge—I know that there has been much political controversy about the Home Secretary and the Prison Service—should the inquiry that I and the right hon. Member for Worthing and other hon. Members are suggesting, consider the future and continuing responsibilities of Ministers?

However, all those matters should be removed from the potential controversy of a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. They should be tackled by people who can make evaluations sensibly, dispassionately and objectively. They should make recommendations to Ministers and Ministers should have the courage to implement them.

I should like to think—certainly in as far as I have any influence in any new Government or otherwise—that Liberal Democrat Members would support Ministers if they made sensible recommendations that brought ministerial salaries and Members' salaries into line with ordinary modern market levels.

I shall be quite brief; I have only three arguments to make.

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on making a case that I should have thought would be acceptable to all hon. Members. The idea that we must at all times do nothing because the press will snipe at us seems to me to be the worst of all possible arguments.

I disagree with my right hon. Friend in only one instance. I do not think that the issue of Ministers' and Members' salaries should go to a Nolan-type inquiry. The case is so well proved that three or four hon. Members—some Ministers and some Opposition Members—should be able to get together to hammer out a joint agreement that can be made public, which will operate from the next Parliament. We should not ask someone else to consider the matter—someone whose recommendations we would review and alter before putting the report to one side. The job should be given fairly and squarely to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), so that together they may work out a new structure.

It cannot be right that the chairman of UK Ltd.—our Prime Minister—is paid less than any chief executive officer of one of the top 100 companies, and probably of many other companies. That cannot make sense. Something has gone wrong with the structure. Whoever the Prime Minister is, that cannot be sensible, and that anomaly should be corrected.

Similarly, something is wrong when Ministers in charge of Departments are paid considerably less than their chief civil servants and often much less than their deputy secretaries and other people, not only the permanent secretary. That is archaic, wrong and should be corrected—and corrected now, to take effect from the start of the next Parliament.

That is the main message that I wish to give to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, there is one other thing. Will he please get together with the Opposition to work out what shall be the indices that we must apply in 1996 for the adjustment? We have been through that so many times over the years.

Eighteen months ago, we believed that we had put the thing to bed— that we would never have that debate again. As a result of the alteration of indices, I understand that we shall have to decide on something. Surely that can be done quickly and mutually, because there should not be any dispute about it, and it can be adopted by the House, without any political aspect being brought into it, for the benefit of all Members who will be affected after the 1996 adjustment. Surely that does not need to be referred to anyone. We and our leaders should be reasonable enough to be able to get that done.

That is a common-sense matter, which would be tackled in that way in any other organisation. Simply because we happen to be in the public eye, we are scared silly that we may be criticised for being greedy or wrong or something of that nature.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I am just about to stop, but of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

It is all right as far as it goes, but the right hon. Gentleman is one of those Conservative Members who will gladly support a minimum wage for Members of Parliament, and in this case for Ministers and others, yet, when it comes to ordinary workers earning £1 or £2 an hour, will undoubtedly walk into the Lobby with all the Ministers to prevent those workers obtaining a miserly £4 an hour.

One might have expected the hon. Gentleman to make that sort of comment, but there are some times when he can rise above being extremely negative and derogatory. The position is not as he would imply. I am suggesting that Members of Parliament might begin to approach—not actually approach—a true market value for the job that they do.

Hon. Members often work 60 or 70 hours a week—not the number of hours that the hon. Gentleman would imply—including working on Saturdays, in time when other people are absolutely free. That is a special job, which needs to be done, and done properly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, we need to attract the best people to do that.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will forgive me for leaving the Chamber. I shall return when he replies to the debate, but a presentation is being made to the Clerk of Committees, who is retiring after 41 years. I shall go, if my right hon. Friend will excuse me, to pay attention and then return to the Chamber.

I believe that I hold a quite different opinion from most hon. Members in the Chamber tonight. However, I endorse some of the comments made about a need to regularise the salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament for the next Parliament. That is prudent.

I shall discuss all the people mentioned in the order at least to Minister of State level, if not higher—with the exception of you and your colleagues, Madam Deputy Speaker, whose salaries are a pale shadow of what they should be.

I broadly agree with one thing that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said. In the unlikely event of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) inviting me to join his Government—perhaps contrary to his better judgment—I certainly would accept the salary of the Minister appropriate to that portfolio, because I believe in the well-established trade union principles, "What you have you hold" and "Take the rate for the job." However, I believe that the way in which we set the rate for the job of Ministers is not appropriate. There are some constitutional dangers, on which I invite the House to pause and reflect.

The historical reason why Ministers have salaries is that, in the days when membership of the House was a part-time job—it could be and was done part time by the vast majority of people—obviously when Members were given a ministerial appointment they were expected and required to give up outside interests, so there was a case for a salary, which created a disparity between Ministers and other Members of Parliament.

Nowadays, even if the work of a Back-Bench Member is not wholly full time—although I believe that it should be, and I have no remaining time to give to any outside interest—there is a consensus that it requires a tremendous amount of time and attention. So, of course, does the work of a Minister, but in my opinion a case cannot be made for a disparity of salary between a Back-Bench Member and, at least, a Member who has reached the level of Minister of State.

I believe that Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Ministers of State work equally hard. They have different roles, and there is a danger of our not recognising the different roles. However, it is important that people should aspire as much to the role of a Back Bencher as they do to that of a Minister.

The functions of Back Benchers and Ministers differ from one other. There is a need for people who will concentrate on being a Back Bencher—who will probe, criticise, cajole and ferret out information. There is a need for hon. Members who ask questions in the House of Commons on evenings when others might want to get away and move on to other business. Such people might be a nuisance and make aggravating remarks. That is an important role, and it is wrong to suggest that it is less important than being a Minister of State. We must bear that in mind.

There are other hon. Members with important functions. The deputy leader of the Labour party does not receive any additional salary; the leader of the Liberal party does not receive any additional salary and the Front-Bench Opposition team do not receive a different salary—they are on Back Benchers' salaries. If there is a case for Ministers receiving a higher salary than Back Benchers, it seems that there is a case for those other hon. Members to whom I have just referred receiving a different salary. However, I believe that we should all be equal here.

Before people deride what I am saying, they should reflect on the fact that there is likely to be a Conservative Opposition in the not too distant future. The Conservative leader of the Opposition will have to choose people to serve on his or her shadow Cabinet. They will no doubt be required and expected by the party to give their full-time energy and enthusiasm to their shadow portfolios, but they will have to do so on their existing Back Benchers' salaries. At that time, some of them might remember my speech and think, "Mackinlay had a point." When they are sitting on the Opposition Benches, they may well think that perhaps their worth, energy and enthusiasm, with minimum resources, are as important as those of the Labour Members sitting on the Treasury Bench.

There is a danger of having two tiers of Members of Parliament, which would not be conducive to good parliamentary democracy. There is no doubt that many people come to this place with a burning ambition to sit in a ministerial car. That is a perfectly honourable ambition, but of equal importance are those people who come here to probe and check the Executive.

Some hon. Members have given long and distinguished service to the House. The late Bob Cryer used to sit below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) works diligently as a Back Bencher. Certainly, millions of people consider my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be extremely good value for money. If there were to be a vote, they would want him to have a salary at least equal to that of a Minister of State.

The system is wrong. I hope that there will be some reflection on the fact that hon. Members should be equal and their salary—their remuneration—should reflect that. Much more important than our income levels are the resources available to us to do the job as Members of Parliament—but that is another debate, as is the subject of hon. Members' salaries. The issue of salaries is important—our cousins across the water in the United States have far more resources than we do to fulfil their roles as legislators.

Will my hon. Friend please finish his speech?

My hon. Friend asks, from a sedentary position, when I will finish my speech. He makes my point: the relationship in this place between the Treasury Front Benchers and the Opposition Front Benchers is far too cosy. There are occasions when hon. Members need to stand up and demonstrate a degree of independence which is not reflected here too often.

On that note, I shall conclude my say—I am pleased to have had it. It is time to cut out the cosy relationship and recognise that parliamentarians here are, and should be, equal.

I am tempted to say that tonight's debate has been an almost heartwarming experience for a Minister. It started off with Ministers being collectively described by the Opposition Front-Bench team as kindly, honourable people, or words to that effect. A series of speakers, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. (Sir P. Emery) and Opposition Members, then described us as underpaid and overworked. I hope that my right hon. Friends and others will understand that I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me, in my position, to spend the rest of this debate warmly agreeing with every word that they said. I thought that some powerful points were made, on which I shall reflect. I hope that others, including those who comment on our affairs outside the House, will also reflect on them.

I listened to the characteristically engaging speech of my fellow Member of Parliament for Essex, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I cannot say that I agreed with every word, but, as he defined a Back Bencher's role as being a nuisance, I thought that he had established some degree of expertise and should be listened to with appropriate respect.

I shall now comment on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which will enable me to pick up, albeit briefly, points raised by other hon. Members. He asked a technical question about a couple of missing words. I have been given the customary soothing assurances from those who send me such assurances that that was no more than a drafting matter, not a sinister, devious plot. I marvel at the hon. Gentleman's assiduousness; I had better confess that I did not sit down and compare every word of this order—

I did.

I know: I am returning the compliment that the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pay to those on the Treasury Bench by complimenting him on his remarkable feat. I am almost tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has demonstrated the need to be paid more. I certainly note the point raised by the hon. Member for Perry Barr and assure him that there was no sinister intention or error involved, but an attempt to improve the drafting. We are always looking to save a word here or there to save the hon. Gentleman's reading time.

I recall the offer that the hon. Gentleman made last year relating to primary legislation, which I did not reject then and certainly would not reject now. In my role as the person with responsibility for the legislative programme, may I say that it is necessary to weigh the question of how much time to use on one issue rather than another. Judging from some of the speeches that have been made from below the Opposition Gangway in today's debate and last year's debate, however much co-operation there may be from the Opposition Front Bench, it is not absolutely clear that that co-operation would be universally reflected throughout the House. I note that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has repeated his suggestion.

I realise that the issue of linkage was raised more in relation to hon. Members' pay than to Ministers' pay and so runs a little wider of the main subject of tonight's debate. I note the concern expressed. As I have demonstrated to the House in the past three years, I have no doubt about the value of a system whereby hon. Members' pay can be increased sensibly and fairly, annually, without the need for an annual debate. I have every intention of ensuring that such a system is sustained.

A number of interesting suggestions have been made in relation to Lord Nolan and other matters. I hope that the House will understand that, against the background of today's debate and the time pressures—quite apart from the factors that I have already mentioned—it would not be right for me to give an extensive, philosophical speech ranging over all those subjects.

Is the Leader of the House aware that a number of points have been made—including some by Conservative Members—that need to be considered seriously? Perhaps we shall return to them soon when we debate the Nolan report. Is the Leader of the House aware that one reason that many of us cannot go along with the suggestion made tonight by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) is that, over the past 16 years, a Tory-dominated Parliament has worsened the position of the poorest paid in this country—those who live on a pittance? All the statistics—even Government statistics—bear that out. In those circumstances, there is no room for cosy complacency between the two sides on the issue of pay.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand why he makes that point. I shall not use my former experience in the social security area to expand on the many improvements that have been made for less well-off pensioners or for people in low-paid employment with children through family credit. I simply make it clear that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Beyond that, the hon. Gentleman has not tempted me to make a speech about social security or any other wider subject. Once again, I commend the order to the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.

The Bill, which is concerned with safety, was originally deposited in the other place in November 1994. It had a trouble-free passage through both Houses to this point. The Bill is modest but important. Railway Bills used to take the lion's share of parliamentary time but they are now something of a rarity, as a result of both Houses accepting recommendations of the Private Bill Procedure Joint Select Committee—of which I have the honour of being Chairman. This is a somewhat unusual occasion but it is nevertheless important.

Although the Bill had a trouble-free passage through both Houses, I must explain its purpose. Railtrack is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act 1985. On 1 April 1994, that part of the British Railways Board undertaking that consisted of the management of the railway network in Great Britain and of related property rights and liabilities was transferred to Railtrack.

Railtrack includes a number of level crossings created for the benefit of owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway, known as accommodation level crossings. Under the previous arrangements, many of those parts of the railway system were not covered by current legislation. Certain railways within what is now Railtrack were authorised by legislation before 1845. One of them covers my own constituency—the 1830 Act relating to the London and South-Western Railway.

Those parts of the railway not covered by section 75 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 or by section 68 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 operated a totally different type of penalty for people who failed to close gates on accommodation crossings. Last night, I found in clause 84 of the 1830 Act—and we grumble about the length of Bills today—these words:

"And be it further enacted, That all Persons opening any Gate set up at either Side of the said Railway to communicate with the adjoining Land shall and they are hereby respectively required, as soon as they, and the Carriages, Cattle or other Animals or Things under their Care, shall have passed through the same, to shut and fasten the said Gate; and every Person neglecting so to do shall forfeit and pay any Sum not exceeding Forty Shillings for every such Offence."

Clearly, that is a modest fine in today's economic climate.

The Railways Act 1992 brought up to date fines for all those railways that were subject to post-1845 legislation, but those before that date were not affected. The Bill is designed to bring the whole rail network, and fines for accommodation crossings in particular, up to date.

The Bill has three clauses, and it will do no more than apply to the pre-1845 Act crossings the same penalties as apply to the amended clauses Acts. If the Bill is passed, all accommodation level crossings throughout England, Wales and Scotland would be subject to the same laws concerning the closure of gates and the lowering of barriers—and the same penalty levels. It is important to note the reference to barriers, because many gates have been replaced by barriers, to which no Act of Parliament makes reference. The schedule comprises a long list of the railways affected.

This is a modernising and important piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

I am sorry that we are not joined tonight by the Secretary of State, but a press release today informs us that he is speaking in Grantham, which presumably has a vacant seat. We wish him well there. I note also that in the awards run by PR Week, Railtrack is a finalist in the category of best internal publication. I did not know that Railtrack had any internal publications—I thought that they all had become public.

We have no problem with the Bill, and I endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). The measure will make a significant contribution to safety, but it must be seen in the context of everything that Railtrack is doing. We question whether everything that is happening on the railways is in line with the measures that the hon. Gentleman is rightly proposing tonight.

I will share with the House some of the thoughts of Jan Glasscock, who I understand is a safety director with Railtrack South, contained in a memorandum in which he reviews safety issues within his area. He complains about the prescriptive nature of safety regulations on the railways and states that the inevitable effect has been either to close the railway completely for lengthy periods or cause excessive delay, and/or reduce the number of trains that can be passed over a specific route. Jan Glasscock writes that while not wishing to dilute the safety message, they must be mindful of the commercial effect that those requirements are having on the railway industry and on Railtrack as a business. He attaches a list of rules, regulations and instructions that he suggests should be got rid of without compromising safety.

The most disturbing passage in that memorandum is the final paragraph, where Jan Glasscock concludes with a flourish:

"It is no good in five years' time saying 'We were the safest railway in the world, but we went out of business.'"

That is a very disturbing sentiment. We want to be able to say, unequivocally, that we have—as we have had in the past—the safest railway in the world; but we do not want that to be pitted against the commercial interests of a private company. For Jan Glasscock to predict that he might conceivably say in five years' time, "We were the safest railway in the world, but we went out of business" suggests to me an immaturity and conflict of interests in the organisation which are intolerable, and which on their own would represent a very good reason for abandoning the privatisation of Railtrack.

Jan Glasscock has suggested a list of measures. Some are doubtless fairly marginal, but others are sufficient to make us wonder whether it is really such a good idea to dispense with safety measures that have been built up over time. He suggests, for instance, allowing the use of a passenger train during fog in the event of information that a person has fallen out. I do not know why that is not considered a good idea, but I am sure that I do not want the commercial interests of Railtrack to determine whether that measure should be repealed now.

Jan Glasscock also wants a more lax regime in regard to train crew route knowledge. I do not wish to detain the House, but the list continues. In regard to signalling, for instance—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be wise to follow his own advice. We are dealing with a narrow Bill—on Third Reading, which makes the debate even narrower.

I am grateful to you for letting me get this far, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I nevertheless think it important to view safety issues in a wider context—and it so happens that some of Jan Glasscock's recommendations for a more lax safety regime apply to level crossings.

It is important to put the Bill in that context. If, as a result of privatisation, we are indeed moving towards a regime in which safety is pitted against the commercial interests of Railtrack, it is all the more important to have the measures and penalties that we are discussing.

I leave hon. Members with that thought from Jan Glasscock:

"It is no good in five years' time saying, 'We were the safest railway in the world but we went out of business.'"

What worries me is that in five years' time we could be saying, "We were the safest railway in the world, but then we were privatised and commercial interests took over." That really would be a tragedy for the country.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) loses no opportunity to blame every leaf on every line—and, no doubt, inappropriate kinds of snow—on privatisation, which has not yet come about. He was remarkably restrained this evening, however: we did not hear of a single leaf, or a single flicker of snow.

The Bill rebuts the hon. Gentleman's implication—British Airways might have some difficulty following the logic of this extraordinary proposition—that the introduction of private capital and more effective management necessarily leads to lower safety standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, it is a housekeeping measure, which seeks to bring the penalties imposed on railways built before 1845 for leaving crossing gates open into line with those built after that date. The anomaly is due to the omission of pre-1845 railways from the Transport and Works Act 1992.

I suppose that, as a previous chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in the House, I should reveal that on occasions such as this Ministers are furnished with sheets of questions and answers anticipating the difficult barbs that may be launched by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can exclusively reveal—provided, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you promise not to pass the information on—that question 2 on my list reads, "Why missed out?" The answer is "Oversight".

Somebody probably cocked it up.

I am not entirely sure whether that is parliamentary expression, but it is more or less the reason for our being here this evening.

A slip of the quill.

A slip of the quill, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says.

I do not think that I need add to the succinct explanation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest of why this innocuous measure should not be given its Third Reading.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment to her first Adjournment debate. I was very pleased when someone whom I know to be a fellow Landrover owner—and a keen one—took over the portfolio; I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in her new job.

The debate is about future facilities at a school in my constituency; it is not—as the media seem to expect—a debate about lack of Government funding, the need for repairs or over-large class sizes. Oxbridge Lane is a very pleasant school, although it is small: it is efficiently run and well led, in good repair and with good class sizes. There are two classes of 30, and the rest comprise between 25 and 30. The buildings are in very good condition.

The debate concerns the future of the school, which is a victim of its own success, with a full roll and parents choosing to send their children to it. The plain fact is that the schoolis simply too small for the number of children who currently attend it, and too small for the number who will want to attend in the future.

At present, the school has some 450 pupils and 21 teachers. After Christmas, there will be 490 children. Given the current admission of 75 children per year, the maximum number that the school could hold is 525. The Department's maximum, I understand, is 442; the figure is based on an admission of 56 per year.

Under the Education Reform Act 1988, primary schools must admit pupils up to their "standard number". That was calculated in 1991 as the highest of the following: the number on the roll in May 1991, divided by the number of age groups; the number produced by dividing the capacity of the school by the number of age groups; and, if applicable, the number intended to be admitted under the most recent proposals under section 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980. In the case of Oxbridge Lane, that figure is 525.

As a result, the school is so crowded that it has to have split break times and split lunch times, and cannot hold an assembly for the whole school at once because the hall is too small and such an assembly would not comply with fire regulations. There is no room for a library, or for proper physical education facilities as required by the national curriculum. There is only one playing field, across the road and up an alley, recently reclaimed from derelict land by the county council. The school nursery and music facilities are delivered in a Horsa hut, also across the road and up the same alley. There are terrible parking problems in the area, as there is no off-street parking.

Generally, the staff are doing wonders with what they have. The buildings are warm, dry and well maintained; when working, the school is quiet and well ordered. None the less, it is exceedingly difficult to run split meal times and breaks when children do not concentrate because other children are indulging in other activities outside the window and there is simply not enough space for all of them to be out in the playground at once. The school was built in 1890. It is now 105 years old; it will be 106 in February. The parents have recently raised a lot of money to refurbish the playground, and I pay tribute to them for their efforts and for the support that they have given to the school. The school is hemmed in on four sides by the Victorian streets that it is built to serve, and there is no room for expansion in any direction.

The children from the Oxbridge area of my constituency deserve adequate facilities so that they can receive excellent access to the national curriculum. Therefore, one of two things will have to happen: either there will have to be a reduction in the standard number at the school, to 60—the physical capacity, which will leave many parents disappointed at not receiving their choice—or a new school building will have to be provided on a site where it is possible to expand.

A reduction in the number of children would fly in the face of the Government's policy of parental choice. That has been endorsed by the governors and the local education authority, but it is, however, not an ideal solution. For instance, even at the lower standard number, the school would still have no kitchen facilities and all the catering would continue to be delivered on wheels from St. Bedes, some distance away, by lorry. That in turn takes the school hall out of use for a good part of the day. Ideally, if the school is to remain where it is, it would benefit from Marlborough road, the adjacent road, being closed off to give safer access to the grassed area and the nursery up the alley on the other side of the road. The Horsa hut, in which the nursery and drama facilities are housed, would also need replacement, as it dates from before the second world war, even though its present condition is quite good. There would still be no access to playing fields. There would still be no technology suite, and the staff room would still not accommodate all the staff at once.

The alternative is to consider building a new school. In another part of my constituency, Ingleby Barwick, we have two delightful new primary schools for a whole new community of new houses. But, in my submission, old communities in old houses deserve good schools for their children as well. The site for a new school is already designated. There are two models of what such a school could be like.

It would be in line with our policy to give parents a real choice if my hon. Friend were to recognise the strength of Oxbridge Lane's claim for capital over the next five years; recognise that it has been top of Cleveland's bid for the past five years; and lobby our colleagues for the necessary funds to start this great project. If she cannot do that, I would very much appreciate her advice as to what should be done.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on raising the situation of this school with me, and welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he has put on behalf of his constituents.

My hon. Friend is well known as an assiduous and hard-working Member who constantly puts issues on behalf of Stockton, South before the House. His constituents are most fortunate to have him as their representative in this place. I also thank him for his kind remarks, and as a fellow Landrover owner, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to keep this vehicle on the right road.

I am well aware of the position at Oxbridge Lane primary school, as are officials in my Department. Thanks to my hon. Friend's efforts, I and other ministerial colleagues have corresponded with him about the school on previous occasions. Indeed, my officials visited Oxbridge Lane last summer to see the school at first hand. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's description of conditions at Oxbridge Lane and have taken note of the representations that he has made about them. My hon. Friend and others on Teesside believe that there are too many children currently attending the school in the light of the facilities that are available on the current site. They also believe the reason for that situation to be an excessively high standard number, which forces the school to recruit additional pupils at a level above that which is sustainable.

I shall first of all say a few words about the rather technical system of the standard number and what it is designed to achieve. I shall then make two suggestions to my hon. Friend as to how the current situation at the school might be alleviated, which I hope he will find helpful.

As my hon. Friend will know, a standard number is a fixed minimum entry number and is intended to be an indicator of a school's capacity, which admissions authorities are required to honour. The intention of the system is to protect the exercise of parental choice. It means that as many parents as possible can have their first choice of school for their children, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in endorsing that principle. We do recognise, however, that standard numbers can sometimes be too high in the light of the facilities that are available at individual schools. We have a mechanism for dealing with that, under which local education authorities can publish proposals for the reduction of standard numbers. Such proposals require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. She looks at each case that reaches her on its merits.

Our expectation is that most successful cases will involve the removal of physical capacity at a school, which implies, of course, that fewer pupils can be accommodated. My right hon. Friend is prepared, however, to take other arguments into account in reaching decisions on proposals for reductions in standard number. It is open to local education authorities to put to her whatever they feel is a convincing case. In reaching a decision, my right hon. Friend would, of course, have regard to the Government's policy of more open enrolment. As many parents as possible should be offered places for their children at the school for which they have expressed a preference.

We must remember that any reduction in a standard number could mean a reduction in the number of parental preferences that can be met. The case for a reduction must therefore be made with reference to the existing standard number and to the changed circumstances of the school since that number was set. My right hon. Friend will need a clear explanation as to why the current standard number should no longer apply. In the case of Oxbridge Lane primary school, therefore, it would be open to the local education authority to publish proposals to reduce the standard number if it felt that it was too high. Were it to do so, I can promise my hon. Friend that I and my right hon. Friend would look very carefully at any arguments that it put. We would also bear in mind what he said tonight.

I should add that the initiative in publishing such a proposal lies with the local education authority alone. Whatever impression my hon. Friend's words may have made on me tonight, action would lie in the first instance with Teesside. The local education authority has not published a proposal to reduce the standard number of the school, and my hon. Friend will, I am sure, wish to take the matter up with it directly.

It may be helpful to my hon. Friend if I comment on a further point about where responsibility for publishing any such proposal would lie. Cleveland county council is currently the local education authority for my hon. Friend's constituency, but from April 1996, Cleveland will, as he knows, be passing that particular baton to the new unitary council for Stockton-on-Tees. If it was the intention that the standard number should be changed before 1 April 1996, it would be for Cleveland county council to publish any proposal. If, on the other hand, the proposal was intended to be implemented after that date, it would be the responsibility of the new Stockton council. We have made explicit provision in regulations for shadow local education authorities such as Stockton to be able to publish proposals before they formally enter into their education kingdoms. There should be no delay in dealing with matters such as this purely because responsibility for education is transferring from one local authority to another.

My second set of remarks relates to capital funding. If something needs putting right at the school, action must in the first instance lie with the local education authority, which has a statutory responsibility for providing school places in Stockton and for ensuring that the buildings where children are taught are safe. Like other local education authorities, it will have substantial capital resources of its own that it could devote to the kind of work at Oxbridge Lane that my hon. Friend mentioned, if it so wished. It is not for me to seek to influence the decisions that it makes about local spending priorities. I should add, however, that it is open to Stockton-on-Tees council, which will have responsibility for the school capital programme in my hon. Friend's constituency from next April, to put in a bid to my Department for capital resources at the school. Indeed, I know that Stockton made reference to the school in the bid that it submitted to my Department only last week. My Department is currently considering local authorities' capital bids, including that of the new Stockton unitary authority, and final allocations will be announced in December.

It may he helpful to my hon. Friend if I explain a little about how our system of capital allocation works. As he knows, local authorities are given permission to borrow up to a certain level to fund capital programmes for all their services, including education. Decisions on how to use the resources generated by borrowing are entirely for the authorities: they must decide priorities between services and between projects within services. The borrowing limit is not the limit on authorities' capital spending. As I have already suggested, authorities are also able to invest capital receipts and they can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish.

In determining each local authority's share of the national total of capital allocations, consideration is given to commitments arising from projects allowed for in previous allocations, providing new school places in areas of population growth, and implementing cost-effective schemes to remove surplus places.

After allowing for authorities' liabilities for work at voluntary-aided schools and for approved capital work at special schools, the remaining resources are distributed by a formula to contribute towards the cost of all other capital-related work at schools. The formula is made up of elements to meet improvement work, work at special schools and other work.

The national priority criteria have been agreed with the local authority associations. They reflect authorities' statutory and contractual liabilities and have remained substantially unchanged for more than 10 years. They are designed to meet the most pressing needs for capital funding in schools.

One example to which my hon. Friend referred is the construction of two new primary schools in Ingleby Barwick. He should be aware that my Department was able to make a substantial financial contribution to the funding of those projects.

Each year we undertake a review to determine whether the procedures should be amended in the light of changes in the organisation of schools and of comments from local authorities and other interested bodies. Of course, we would consider carefully any representations for a change in the criteria which attract consensus support.

I understand that the local education authority and the governors would prefer to replace Oxbridge Lane primary rather than reduce its standard number. However, my hon. Friend will wish to note that, in its past three capital bids, Cleveland local education authority has not bid for a named project for the school in one of my Department's priority categories but has said that it is a project that it wishes to fund out of its improvement/replacement formula. Capital under the improvement/replacement formula is not given for named projects, and it is up to local education authorities how they spend their improvement/replacement resources and, indeed, as I said a moment ago, their total annual capital guidelines allocation.

It is always open to local education authorities, however, to bid for additional capital resources in the supplementary credit approval rounds that take place three or four times a year. Supplementary credit approvals are late additions to local authorities' capital allocations for cases where capital could not be issued in the main capital round. They also act as a way of providing for projects that are clearly very worth while but might just fail to meet the strict criteria for specific cover that I have already outlined.

My Department currently gives priority to projects that involve significant investment from the private finance initiative and those connected with the single regeneration budget. I must, however, emphasise that all bids will be examined on their individual merits. I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to make any promises here and now.

Cleveland local education authority has not bid for a supplementary credit approval for the school in question. The next supplementary credit approval round is likely to take place early next year. Any allocations given in that round are for spending before April 1996. Again, my hon. Friend may wish to approach the local education authority on that point.

Clearly, I cannot guarantee the success of any bid submitted for consideration, but my hon. Friend can be assured that, if a bid is submitted, I shall take into account everything that has been said this evening. If bids are unsuccessful, local education authorities are welcome to ask that their bid should be reconsidered in future capital rounds.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and for the opportunity to discuss some of the issues surrounding school building projects and our policy on admissions. I am always happy to take account of any points that he would like to draw to my attention, especially in connection with Oxbridge Lane primary school, and I have sought to be helpful tonight.

I have particularly noted my hon. Friend's opening remarks, in which he said that the school is pleasant, efficiently run and well led. There is no doubt that his comments will be reflected on with pride by the teachers, governors and parents alike at that school.