With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the family doctors' contract.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that, late last night after prolonged discussions, I reached agreement with Dr. Michael Wilson the chairman of the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association and his negotiating colleagues on all the major outstanding issues involved in the new contract proposed for family doctors. I now expect a contract on the lines agreed to be introduced for family doctors throughout Great Britain with effect from 1 April 1990. My Department is now preparing a new statement of fees and allowances and regulations for consultation on minor details with representatives of the profession and I will lay the regulations in their final form before the House in due course.

The new contract will introduce new performance bonus payments for those doctors who reach the Government's targets of 90 per cent. coverage for childhood immunisation and 80 per cent. coverage for screening for cervical cancer. I have also agreed to introduce new lower-rate bonus payments of one third of the full rate for those doctors who attain 70 per cent. for immunisation and 50 per cent. cover for cervical cancer screening.

The negotiators have agreed my proposal that the fee paid where a night visit is made by a doctor from the patient's own practice should be three times the fee paid when the visit is made by a deputy.

To meet representations put to me on behalf of doctors in small practices, I have agreed that the higher fee for night visits should also be paid when the visit is made by a doctor from a small rota of local general practitioners, so long as the rota does not include more than 10 practitioners.

I had originally proposed that the new contract should require GPs to be available to patients for 20 hours each week in surgery. To meet representations put to me by rural doctors in particular, I have now agreed that the terms of service will require GPs to be available for 26 hours on average over five days each week and that this will include availability in surgery, health promotion clinics and for home visits. In recognition of the work that some GPs do elsewhere on health-related activities in the public service, for example in community hospitals, this commitment can be reduced to four days in individual cases subject to agreement with the family practitioner committee.

The GMSC and I have always agreed that additional payments should be made to rural practitioners and that the present system of rural practice payments needed to be updated. We have not yet agreed on the fairest method, but we are confident that we will be able to do so. We agreed last night that work on revising the scheme would be taken out of the present negotiations and considered by the central advisory committee on rural practice payments.

We also reached mutually satisfactory agreements on minor surgery, seniority payments, the basic practice allowance, funds for practice teams and premises and new higher capitation payments for GPs serving deprived areas.

We also agreed to submit joint evidence to the doctors and dentists review body about pricing the new contract in such a way as to meet the Government's policy objective for the general medical services in that the joint evidence would refer to the profession's acceptance of the Government's intention that the proportion of the remuneration of GPs arising from capitation based payments will reach 60 per cent. from 1 April 1990.

There were large areas of the new contract on which we had always been in agreement with the profession. I am glad to say, therefore, that, for example, the proposed new payments for surveillance of young children and the new higher capitation payments for patients over the age of 75 with whom doctors retain close contact were never at any time the subject of controversy between us.

The negotiators undertook to commend last night's agreement to the profession for implementation with effect from 1 April 1990.

This agreement is a very significant step in the development of the family doctor service in our National Health Service. The new contract will be very different from the old one. It will ensure that the highest rewards go to the most hard-working doctors and that incentives and rewards are given to those who introduce new services and hit high standards of performance. I think that the negotiators and I are agreed that it provides the foundation for significant further improvements in the quality of primary health care for all our NHS patients.

We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made what we hope will be the first of many U-turns—[Interruption.] Oh yes.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the negotiations have never been about how much is put from the public purse into general practice but rather about how that money from the public purse is to be distributed? Therefore, his comments about general practitioners feeling for their wallets were deeply offensive and unnecessary. Will he now apologise for the thuggish way he has conducted the negotiations?

Does the Secretary of State recognise that many believe that his aggressive style during the negotiations was a deliberate ploy to distract from doctors' opposition to the White Paper and to muddle in the public mind the issues of the White Paper and those of the contract? Will he guarantee that the cash limits for general practice ancillary staff and premises, which were set up under the Health and Medicines Act 1988, will not be so low as to prevent doctors from achieving the screening and prevention targets that are to be put into the new contract?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the widespread concern about giving disproportionate financial incentives to doctors to increase their list size when patients get better care if doctors have more time for each patient? Will he guarantee that he will keep a close eye on how the capitation element works in practice and take action if it creeps above 60 per cent.? Will he recognise that the row that he has been having with the doctors will be as nothing compared to the wholesale opposition from the profession and the public to his plans to destroy the NHS?

Like my hon. Friends, I found the hon. Lady's opening remarks somewhat surprising. If she now supports the contract as agreed last night, the most amazing U-turn has been performed by the Opposition. The contract as agreed reflects the performance targets and higher capitation levels on which the Government have always insisted. We have agreed with the profession a reasonable package which meets its requirements and those of the many doctors who have made representations to us on the details of how we achieve the Government's aims in the contract. The profession is now satisfied that we are pursuing the aims we were always pursuing in a practicable and sensible way.

I shall quote myself in full since the hon. Lady referred to my remarks about doctors feeling for their wallets. I said that I wished that the more suspicious doctors would stop feeling for their wallets whenever I mentioned the word "reform". I said that because the first reactions to my proposals were that many doctors, quite unreasonably, believed that somehow we were aiming to cut their incomes as soon as we started talking about a contract. We have now satisfied all doctors that there was never a threat to the overall level of general practitioners' incomes and that we were merely seeking to reward those who work hardest and hit the highest standards under the contract. Now that we have satisfied the negotiators of the GMSC on that point, I trust that the rest of the medical profession will be readily reassured.

I agree entirely that it is right to stop muddling up the contract for the remuneration of general practitioners with the White Paper reforms. The GMSC agrees with us about that. The issues have been muddled in recent campaigning. Many people have interpreted general practitioners' concern over the details of their contracts as fundamental opposition to our aims. The BMA negotiators last night agreed that they share our aims as set out in the foreword to the NHS review. They accept that we should aim to achieve a better service for patients. As we discussed matters fruitfully last night, I trust that we shall be able to do so on the White Paper and pursue our common aims in agreed ways as we develop our proposals for new methods of running the Health Service. I gave assurances yesterday about cash limits for ancillary services and said that we would honour commitments that we gave in passing the Health and Medicines Act 1988.

I do not accept that our measures are a drive towards bigger lists. We are agreed about increasing capitation, and it helps to improve the quality of service if those who work hard are rewarded and doctors are encouraged to attract and retain their patients. Above all, list sizes will be determined by whether patients are attracted and retained by services, and, of course, they will not wish to go to a doctor who is too busy to see them.

The agreement clears the way for more constructive discussion on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients". I welcome the improvement in atmosphere that I am sure will result from our agreement. The bulk of the medical profession wants to join us in discussing the details of how we implement the Government's agreed aims to improve the Health Service for British patients.

The fact that this long-running business of settling the new contract has been concluded satisfactorily will give much satisfaction and pleasure to Conservative Members and people outside the House. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on sticking firmly to the underlying aim and thrust behind the contract—to improve pay for those doctors who work hardest. My right hon. and learned Friend has never wavered, and there is no question of any U-turn. We admire him for always accommodating the BMA when it has asked for meetings over the past months. Some women doctors appeared to think that the way in which the contract was developing would disadvantage their opportunities within the profession. Will he reassure me that that is not so?

My hon. Friend knows as well as I that this has been a long-running subject. I share her relief that the long negotiations have at last come to an end with the agreed settlement. I thank her for her remarks, which are well worth bearing in mind as we proceed with the White Paper proposals for the reform of the Health Service. We must stick determinedly to our aim of improving the service, but we will be prepared to discuss with representatives of the profession, in as much detail as they want, how the aims can be achieved, and I think that last night was a good omen.

I have received many representations about women doctors. Although some of the fears that were expressed were misplaced, we endeavoured to ease the problems in our discussions last night. When my hon. Friend studies the details of the agreement, she will note that the change of basing payments from personal lists back to practice lists, and some of the changes that we made to the basic practice allowance, were designed to meet, among other things, the fear that we might accidentally deter women doctors from being admitted into partnerships.

I welcome the fact that agreement has been reached, not least because it shows that the Secretary of State now accepts that doctors, especially rural doctors, had real and substantial fears. I suspect that, on mature reflection, he may consider that the observation about doctors reaching for their wallets should not have been made. Will he clarify the protection that will be given to inner-city doctors, given the transient nature of their lists, which makes it more difficult not only to increase lists but to meet targets? In his statement, he referred to "Great Britain". Does last night's agreement supersede the draft contract issued to Scottish general practitioners by the Scottish Office Minister with responsibilities for health?

I agree that it is important to give increased capitation payments to rural doctors and those who work in deprived areas, and both those groups were discussed yesterday. Both sides are agreed on the aim for rural doctors, but cannot agree on the method. Each side believes that the proposal that it is putting forward is fairer to rural doctors than the competing method. I have agreed that the matter should be referred to the specialist committee to decide how the current arrangements should be revised—we both agree that they should be revised—and in the meantime the current system will continue, which will reassure doctors north and south of the border.

We are introducing new higher capitation payments for those who work in inner-city areas. We are agreed on the basic principle of how to make the higher payments using an index known as the Jarman index. We have agreed to hold further discussions on precisely which areas will be covered. The choice is whether we have a high addition concentrated on few areas or whether it should be spread more widely over deprived districts.

This is a Great Britain agreement, and Scottish and Welsh negotiators were present yesterday. The agreement will apply to England, Scotland and Wales.

I join in extending congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the diligence and patience with which he conducted the negotiations and the success that has crowned them. There has been much confusion between the contract and the White Paper, for which the profession must accept some responsibility. What will be the mechanics of explaining to doctors what has been agreed so that there will be no future misunderstandings? Does he agree that if reasonable men can reach agreement on the contract, it should be perfectly possible to reach understanding in discussions on the working papers that accompanied the White Paper, which worked towards ends that surely all of us share—the best possible National Health Service, which is in the interests of professionals, politicians and patients?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Rather perversely, I enjoy prolonged negotiations, which obviously goes back to my murky past as a lawyer. These were quite the most difficult and longest negotiations in which I have taken part since those that I had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the greatly increased money for the Health Service this year. As we agreed that we shall spend it ever more wisely, the two are closely related.

My hon. Friend's point about explaining the mechanics to doctors is extremely important. I shall consider as rapidly as possible how I can most quickly communicate with all general practitioners so that they are aware of what has been agreed on their behalf. That is a great weakness in the Health Service, which gives rise to needless controversy. Half the people who work in it have no direct access to clear information about what is being proposed and done. The result is that they rely for a lot of their information on strange articles in specialist journals and leafleteering, which gives rise to unnecessary concern.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement admirably demonstrates how the profession and the Government, who are both firmly committed to improving the National Health Service, can agree on details as long as we are prepared to thrash them out.

The Secretary of State made it clear that the issue of rural practice payments has been referred to the central advisory committee. Will he clarify when he expects such negotiations to be completed, because it is of particular interest to areas such as mine and throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? It would be helpful if he gave an indication of the time scale that is envisaged.

The Secretary of State will be aware that many women doctors work part time. If the basic practice allowance is not to be made available to those with lists of fewer than 400 patients, has he estimated how many women GPs might be excluded from receipt of that payment?

I cannot say how long it will take for negotiations to be completed, but we shall ask the committee to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. There is no difference of principle between us, and it probably requires the assistance of the specialist committee to work out the methodology and how we should revise and bring up to date the present arrangements.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Egbaston (Dame Jill Knight), we have made significant changes to meet the fears expressed by women doctors. I do not think that the new contract will deter the taking on of women partners. Indeed, it recognises to a greater extent than before concepts such as job sharing and being a full principal with a part-time commitment.

The ever-growing interest in matters such as female screening for cancer will make women practitioners more attractive to partnerships because we are giving incentives for high performance in that part of medicine. Partly in response to the worries of female doctors, we have moved to the basic practice levels first set out in the proposed Scottish contract. We have put the rural matter on one side because of the fears of rural doctors north and south of the border and in order to seek a sensible agreement.

I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a settlement that everyone will welcome with relief and I congratulate him also on his healing words. Is he aware that two conclusions can be drawn? First, my right hon. and learned Friend is the antithesis of the fool and the knave that he has been portrayed as by the medical profession. Secondly, the unscrupulous use of the fears of the old and the sick which has been undertaken by general practitioners, certainly in my constituency, turns out to be little more than a bargaining ploy in these contractual negotiations. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore be even more determined to press on with his National Health Service improvements, despite what opposition may be set up by the now discredited general practitioners?

I was not going to return to some of the topics on which my hon. and learned Friend has touched, but I note his views.

Certainly, on occasions, hard words have been exchanged. It is my experience—I am now in my second stint at the Department of Health—that medical politics is no place for the squeamish. They are never conducted on the same restrained level as matters of war and peace and other issues in British politics. I am glad to say that it has been my experience that agreement can be reached in the end and that, after a dispute is over, people appear to forget it entirely and no one can quite remember what the fuss was all about. That is likely to happen on this occasion.

My hon. and learned Friend is not the only person to feel that some of the points aimed at patients, as opposed to those aimed at me, were perhaps unwise. No doubt, he will make inquiries about what is proposed to be done about the 11 million leaflets that were published as part of the recent campaign.

The Secretary of State will know of the critical reception given by doctors in the London borough of Newham to his proposals. Although this is a separate matter, will he give a guarantee that general practice will not become a cash-limited service and that there will be no compulsion for doctors to become budget holders?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the first assurance that he seeks. There are no proposals in our White Paper to make the family doctor service cash limited, as he puts it. We have made it clear that practice budgets are open to GPs who want them. Those who expressed an interest in them will discuss the details and negotiate the size of the budget before contemplating whether to go on.

Drug budgets remain an important issue which we must settle. They will be indicative drug budgets, which means that there will be an indication of what the doctor should spend and, if he overspends, he will have to justify that to another doctor and explain his clinical practice. The important point about drug budgets from the point of view of the people of Newham and elsewhere is that there is nothing in our proposals that will ever lead to any difficulties for patients. There is certainly no question of any patient ever being refused the medicine that he or she needs because of anything that the Government have proposed or anything else in the offing for the Health Service.

Following this welcome outbreak of sanity in the BMA, and now that the doctors' wage claim has been settled on terms which are basically the same as those originally proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend, which they said would prove so disastrous, may we expect to hear less from the BMA in the way of hysterical and untruthful assertions about the effects of the contract and the NHS reforms, which have worried so many of our patients and some of our doctors in such an unnecessary and wicked way?

I must be fair to Michael Wilson and his colleagues who, along with my team and me, worked hard to reach a sensible package and an agreement. At the end, we parted on extremely good terms, both sides believing that we had improved the relationship between us. I share my hon. Friend's hope that that will continue and that we shall continue to discuss in the same spirit other matters arising out of the NHS White Paper that have been made more contentious than they need be. I am sure that the average member of the public cannot understand how such a highly qualified profession as the doctors can get into a dispute with the Government when we all agree that we are entirely agreed on the policy's objectives.

In view of what has been said by Conservative Members, will the Secretary of State accept this point? In my contacts with general practitioners in my constituency, both personally and through letters, no one has brought up the issue of the contract. It is not in dispute and has not been in the BMA's leaflets. The only time that I had a conversation about the contract was last Monday, the bank holiday, when my family doctor called at my home because one of my children was sick, and that conversation was about reaching set targets for cervical cancer screening. In my district health authority area women can go to a general practitioner, a family planning clinic or an out-patient service provided by the local health service. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman discussed in detail the setting of these targets and collection of statistics showing whether those targets are being met? That is important, in view of the complicated arrangements that exist, certainly within my district health authority.

The hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. Targets for screening for cervical cancer were an issue in the contract. The Government always stated our aim that four out of five at-risk women should be screened against cervical cancer because it is an unnecessary and avoidable form of death for many women. We were able yesterday finally to agree that the Government's aim of 80 per cent. cover for cervical cancer screening was a sensible target to set. The change that I made was to introduce a new lower target of one third of the value of the full one for doctors who were not able to get immediately to the 80 per cent. target, but were able to get to 50 per cent. or more. I am sure that what we agreed last night will raise the level of screening and protect more women than would otherwise have been protected from the risk of death from cervical cancer.

Without apportioning blame, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there has been an imperfect understanding by doctors of our proposals for their contract and of our proposals in the White Paper? Will my right hon. and learned Friend now do two things? First, will he communicate directly with GPs about the terms of the agreement that he reached yesterday and which we all welcome so warmly? Secondly, will he ensure that, in the continuing discussions about the implementation of the White Paper and the genuine exchange of views that is taking place, where necessary the Government will communicate directly with those doctors whose co-operation and assistance in his reforms are essential?

I welcome my hon. Friend's advice and share the views that lie behind it. I caused to be sent to every GP, for the first time ever, copies of our contract proposals as they then stood. We have not moved away from those aims in what we have agreed today. When the leafleting campaign started, I sent every GP an explanation of my reply to the allegations in the leaflet. Unfortunately, I do not think that my communications are the sole source of information for doctors. I attribute no malice to anyone, but I think that often doctors do not read what they regard as mail coming from the Department. Many comments about what we were doing soon came flowing in from newspapers, other commentators and, dare I say, Opposition spokesmen which rapidly gave the impression that, for example, we would force doctors to have enormous practice list sizes. That was a red herring from beginning to end.

I take my hon. Friend's point that we must ensure that these contract details are firmly brought to the attention of GPs. They have been agreed by their negotiators, whom they trust, and I am sure that they will accept their commendation. We have to do a great deal to rebuild the trust of family doctors and to persuade them that we are not threatening their incomes, practices or well-being; we share with them the aim of improving the service.

Has the Secretary of State been so busy declaring war on GPs that he has concluded a disappointing contract for patients? That is particularly true for women, in view of the cervical smear figures that he has provided. The targets of 80 per cent. and, especially, 50 per cent. are too low. If the target for immunisation is 90 per cent., why cannot the target for cervical cancer testing be 90 per cent.? Is not the 50 per cent. figure an abysmal sell-out? That will be the target to which GPs work. Is this happening because to Secretary of State does not give women's health a sufficiently high priority or because he will not give enough money to health authorities to ensure that a computer call and recall system operates properly?

As GPs will have their budgets limited, there is no incentive for them to deal with patients who contract HIV or have AIDS and who will be an expensive cost in budgets in future years. Should not the treatment of patients with HIV now be a subject for their contracts?

I shall consider seriously having the hon. Gentleman with me on future occasions when I am discussing these matters, as he thinks that I have not gone far enough in the targets I have set. A target of 100 per cent., for example, for screening for cervical cancer might be ideal in an ideal world, but the test is voluntary. We all know that some patients will not respond and that others will refuse to have the test—for understandable reasons. We ask the doctors to explain and promote the benefits of the test to their patients. The general medical services committee agreed yesterday that the 80 per cent. target, which the Government thought was reasonable, was correct. The committee also persuaded me that it would be fair to introduce a lower target for practices that find it impossible to achieve 80 per cent. the first time, so GPs will receive one third of the bonus payment if they reach 50 per cent. However, our aim is the same—to raise the level of screening.

We need to consider new services for AIDS patients in using our new powers to draw the cash limits for payments for improvements to premises and practices, especially if there is a need to develop new clinics because there is a particular problem in an area. I agree that AIDS is a growing problem for particular practices in some areas. I am sure that the GMSC and I will continue to address the way in which we help such GPs to deal with this serious problem.

I join hon. Members and people outside in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing common sense back into the negotiations. Does that not show that the Government are listening to valid points put by doctors and others? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that that foreshadows constructive discussions on the Government's White Paper. Does he agree that whenever the Opposition enter the debate, they only add to the confusion and distress felt by many patients?

I agree that we have been listening carefully to the representations of many hon. Members, who have, in turn, met GPs in their constituencies. Our proposals on rural practices, for example, and some of the changes we have made to the targets strongly reflect representations made to me by my hon. Friends and others in the past few weeks. We will continue to adopt the same approach. We have said throughout that we want constructive discussion on the working papers that we have put out because we intend to work in partnership with the profession in the implementation of the White Paper proposals. It is not for me to comment on the interventions by the Opposition, for which I am not responsible. However, I suspect that they feel a deep sense of disappointment that we have made a significant advance and that the way is now clear for the continued smooth implementation of the White Paper.

May I press the Secretary of State for a statement on resources? It is all very well to set standards, but unless there are additional resources to carry out testing, such as cervical smears, little will be achieved. The Secretary of State referred to AIDS. As he may know, Edinburgh has a high incidence of AIDS infection. It is not good enough to say that discussions about increased resources for the treatment and detection of patients with AIDS are a matter for the future. We need resources now and we should recognise that there is a growing problem in Edinburgh and it is spreading to the rest of the United Kingdom. What will the Secretary of State do about it? Do we have to wait until the problem arises in London before he realises that AIDS is a real problem?

I said a moment ago that the last prolonged negotiations in which I was engaged were with my colleagues at the Treasury on resources for the National Health Service. The priority that the Government gave to putting extra resources into the Health Service was demonstrated clearly by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last autumn, when almost £2 billion extra was put into the Health Service. My Department is now the second highest spending Department. We spend more than the Ministry of Defence does—which is more than the Labour party could ever say—and if we carry on as we did last autumn, we shall rapidly catch up the Department of Social Security. This agreement is no substitute for resources. However, we are putting in resources on a scale that no previous Government have ever achieved and we are matching that with new proposals to ensure that the resources provide ever higher quality care.

The Government have put vast resources into research into AIDS and into developing new services north and south of the border. It is true that the problem is at its most acute in Edinburgh and, after Edinburgh, in London. It will be news to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who said that the problem would come to London soon, that it is there now. The Government have one of the best records of any Government in the developed world in responding to the threat of AIDS, both in resources for treatment and in public health education.

I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his determination to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for money and that doctors who conscientiously carry out their duties are rewarded properly. In that regard, he is encouraging doctors to refer as few cases as possible to hospitals, and that must be good both for the practitioners and their patients. Will he shortly introduce a similar contract for consultants, some of whom are giving good service but others of whom are not? That is one of the major reasons for the long waiting lists in some areas.

I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend in the way in which he described our proposals on referrals. Under the new contract, we shall have more information than ever before about the pattern of referrals and we shall find out more about how doctors refer their patients. We want the right use of the hospital service and the right level of referrals. At extremes, some doctors may refer far too many people by referring everybody to the hospital as a way of avoiding decisions themselves. At the other extreme, there may be doctors who do not refer anybody, even when they should seek specialist advice. All the best GPs would agree that what is required is a good level of clinical practice so that GPs know when they should refer.

Consultants will be affected by the White Paper changes. Districts will have more control over what consultants do by being able to agree with them a job description which can be revised each year. That will help us to ensure that consultants have their efforts directed to the prime needs of patients in the area, which could include tackling waiting lists. Many of our proposals are aimed at ensuring that the whole service is brought up to the standards of the best. That means that we do not have to tolerate indefinitely the fact that waiting lists for similar operations can be enormous in one town, but much lower in another. Part of the reason lies in the system. It needs to be reformed, and in our proposals we are tackling the problem that my hon. Friend has described.

The Secretary of State said that he was looking forward to the continuance of constructive discussions. Does he consider that constructive discussions have been helped by the violent and intemperate language of some of his Back Benchers, who have referred today to the greed of doctors and to evil and wicked behaviour? Will the discussions be helped by his Back Benchers' concentration on the taxpayer rather than the patient? Will the Secretary of State recall that taxpayers are also patients?

Is not the White Paper still under massive questioning by the medical profession? We are pleased that an agreement has been secured which will allow more sensible discussion, but it does not go to the heart of the problem. The White Paper is still pushing in the direction of the private and away from the social. It is still not concentrating on the need for a fully social profession serving the community. The White Paper is still dominated by thoughts of cash. It is time that we thought of health instead.

My hon. Friends and I have never attacked the medical profession, but it is true that we have attacked—

They have been attacking the profession all morning.

We have attacked vigorously some of the leaflets that have caused needless alarm to patients. The fact that my hon. Friends responded as they did made it clear to people using such leaflets in the campaign that they would not deter the Government from pursuing their aims. It also had the significant effect of persuading everybody that we should have sensible negotiations and that any amount of trying to frighten patients for the purpose of deterring the Government from their policies would not work. I assume that the leaflets are now a matter of the past.

It is a parody to say that the White Paper is concerned primarily with cash. Our main involvement with cash and the Health Service is that we continue to put in huge amounts, above inflation, and we have expanded the resources available to the Health Service at a rate that previous Governments have never been able to attain. The purpose of the White Paper is to improve the service for patients. The profession agrees with us about that and we look forward to working with it constructively to achieve that aim.

My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals will be especially welcomed by GPs in rural practices in Wales. Can he tell me what he thinks the average remuneration of such GPs will be under the new contract? Is he looking at the problem of over-counting, because it is reported that in some inner-city areas as many as 20 per cent. of patients have moved away? The new agreement should contain a proper basis for paying doctors.

It is difficult for me to give some sort of average figure for rural doctors in Wales. We would need to take a little more account of the circumstances of individual practices. I remind my hon. Friend of the examples that we gave at the back of the document that I sent to all GPs. They showed how the earning capacity of a doctor could be affected, given various list sizes, depending on the services that they provide. We shall have to update that to give every practitioner a clear idea of where he or she stands in relation to the new proposals.

My hon. Friend asked about over-counting. That has been a problem in the past, and I am sure that at one time if the lists of all GPs were added together the total would have been greater than the population, because many deceased people remain on a doctor's list for a long time. At long last we are making rapid advances in the introduction of information technology, and GPs records are very much better than they were. We can eliminate the problem of patients appearing on more than one list and should certainly have more reliable figures to work on by the time the new contract comes in next year.

Will not the Secretary of State's statement be for ever known as the Vale of Glamorgan settlement? Is it not right to say that, notwithstanding all the letters that hon. Members have had from constituents and from doctors complaining about the White Paper in general, doctors in the Vale of Glamorgan acted during the by-election in a way that frightened the living daylights out of the Government and the Prime Minister in particular? That is why she has sent this lackey to the Dispatch Box after meeting the doctors to arrange the settlement. Will the Minister now go the whole way and carry out the wishes of millions of constituents and completely withdraw the White Paper?

The hon. Gentleman understands, arid, of course, it was a considerable frustration to me, that I could not proceed with the discussions before last night. I suspect that that was also a considerable disappointment to some people who campaigned on our behalf in the Vale of Glamorgan and elsewhere. I do not think that the action of the doctors was for party political reasons, because I assure the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of doctors vote Conservative. By an unhappy coincidence they had summoned a conference of their local medical committees for last week and felt unable to proceed with any meaningful negotiations until the conference was over. We settled last night about an hour after the polls closed, which was a considerable misfortune.

I hope that some of the doctors who have been distributing stuff in Glamorgan reflect on what they have been putting out. I hope that some of the people who voted in mid-Glamorgan will look back on some of the leaflets to see what they said about excessive list sizes and so on in the light of last night's agreement.

May I offer my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on his outstanding ability and on the success with which he has conducted and concluded these negotiations in very difficult circumstances? Does he agree that the reduction in the fixed element of the increase in the weighting of the performance-related classification element of GPs' remuneration is an important principle and a welcome part of the principle of economic rationality in the family practitioner service? Will he be encouraged to go further in applying that principle in reforming the National Health Service as a whole?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly share his belief in the value of performace-related payments because they encourage the very best standards of service in the NHS and elsewhere. I am keen on the whole idea of performance-related payment systems in many walks of life. We have them for general managers in the Health Service, and I agree that that principle and others mean good value for money for the patient and are the kind of principles that we should apply as we implement our NHS reforms.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to say more about what is behind his remarks on higher capitation for deprived areas? I have one or two such areas in my constituency. They concern me very much and certainly need help. Last night, GPs in my constituency said to me that they would like a greater right to refuse patients more quickly than at the moment. Is that implied in the agreement? In an urban area such as my constituency GPs have said that the optimum number of patients per GP is 1,700. Will the agreement change anything?

I can tell my hon. Friend that 1,700 is below the average list size. I do not know the details of particular practices, but I accept that in some places lists cannot be as big as they are elsewhere. That applies especially in scattered rural areas or in areas of social deprivation where the demands are likely to be heavier per patient. That is the reason for this system and we are still discussing the details with the profession. The Jarman index is accepted by everybody as the best measurement of social deprivation for the purpose of assessing capitation fees. We still need to settle precisely which districts it will apply to. We were near to agreement last night, but decided to have further discussions at official level to finalise the details.

I am not quite sure about my hon. Friend's point about the ease of refusing patients. It has always been the case that, except in exceptional circumstances, a GP cannot be forced to take a patient. It is obviously much better for the GP to be a willing recipient of the patient but in unfortunate cases where a person can get nobody to take him the family practitioner committee has to retain the right to oblige a practice somewhere to offer medical services.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the agreement reached last night has demonstrated that a substantial body of medical opinion has accepted the principle that some change and some improvements are needed in the Health Service? Consequently, does he agree that the Government are right and the Opposition are wrong?

Clearly, I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows that there never was any deep-seated rift or division of aims between ourselves and the medical profession. Many doctors agree with our aims and with many of our proposals in the contract and in the White Paper. The belief that the whole profession is up in arms against us is a complete myth. It must be a sad disappointment to the Opposition to see that we can make progress on the contract because they know that we can make similar progress on the White Paper. I have every intention of doing that.

As my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly said, the welcome agreement now leaves the road open for a sensible and rational debate about the merits of the White Paper. Does he agree that that debate can now be even more rational because there is no excuse whatever for leaving elerly and sick patients with the idea that their general practitioners will not have the time, resources or the prescriptive budget to treat them and that they might be turned away?

I agree that it is extremely important for us to continue to make clear that there never was, there is not now, and there never will be any circumstances in which elderly people will be turned away from their doctors or refused treatment as a result of any proposals by this Government. That is a total misunderstanding of what we propose and has aroused needless fears. We should all join in making sure that elderly people are reassured. The ideas being put about are total nonsense and we should now get back to a sensible debate about the proposals.

I have a letter here from a Mrs. A. M. Downes. Does the Secretary of State accept that thousands of elderly people are concerned about the cash-limiting proposal? Can he explain it further to my constituents? If the Government aim in some sense to put a ceiling on what GPs can spend, how can that be done without GPs running out of money at some point?

Regarding the capitation statement that is being negotiated for the deprived areas, is the M insister aware of how complex this question is? Areas such as mine in Hackney will have special problems. Other areas have special needs because of the high percentage of elderly people who need much more time spent on them and who cannot just be pushed in and out to achieve cost effectiveness. Will the Minister agree that it will take more than this statement and the agreement on the contract to quiet the fears of the thousands of people with whom I am in touch and who are concerned? Conservative Members should take seriously the letters from constituents.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were taking matters seriously. We were here when the statement was made, and the hon. Lady was not.

Conservative Members must have received hundreds of letters from constituents, as I have. Those constituents would be alarmed indeed if they could see Conservative Members giggling and chattering through this portion of the debate. Will the Minister answer two particular points—about the cash limiting and about the complexity of the nature of how privatisation might work in deprived areas?

The hon. Lady may have gathered that it is somewhat unusual to intervene and ask a question about a statement when one has been present for only the last 10 minutes of the proceedings. I advise her to refer back to some of what has already been said.

However, I would not want the hon. Lady to start raising needless fears in Hackney or anywhere else. Regarding deprivation, and the Jarman index I am 99·9 per cent. certain that the borough of Hackney will qualify under the index we are using for higher payments per head for GPs serving the Hackney area.

Regarding the letter that the hon. Lady has, I hope that, whatever the political divisions between us, she will reply to the elderly lady repeating what I said a moment ago and saying that there is no prospect of her being deprived of any treatment at all. As I said earlier, the indicative drug budgets are an indication to a doctor of what it is believed his prescribing costs ought to be if he follows good clinical practice. If he over-subscribes he will be asked why and will be asked to justify his action to another doctor. If he cannot justify his action, it is possible that he will suffer penalties to his own pocket in his remuneration. In no circumstances will a cash limit be placed on his drug budget so that he is not able to prescribe for his patients so they can get the prescription dispensed at the chemist. To say anything different is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with our proposals.

My short answer is that the hon. Lady should write back to her constituent, telling her that her fears are groundless. Then yet another elderly patient need not be worried by some of the nonsense that has been circulated in recent weeks.

Before I was interrupted to listen to the Vale of Glamorgan settlement of the doctors, I was discussing the matter of clause 2. From time to time I was diverted, particularly by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who is PPS to the Secretary of State for the Environment was raising matters about lawyers. He actually started me talking about the devious nature of lawyers and about Government lawyers who are arguing the toss among themselves on the queston of barristers and solicitors. They are offended by the idea of the Lord Chancellor to merge the two professions.

However, I want to talk about clause 2 because my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has just arrived, and he has special knowledge of weights and measures, since he used to work in an industry in which such matters were discussed at length. He has a lawyer's analytical mind. When I first met him, I asked him what sort of Bill he would introduce if he won the ballot. He said that he had several in mind, including a Bill on weights and measures. He will probably tell us all about that later.

I am worried about a provision in subsection (5), which is designed to insert in subsection (6), after the words "An inspector" the words "or authorised person". What does that mean? It conjures up a lot of possibilities. Does it mean that we could have inspectors without proper qualifications? Will they be assessed? We have heard the Government talking about teachers needing assessment all the time, but apparently it is a different matter for inspectors. Apparently, proper assessments are not necessary for inspectors in the private sector.

For instance, the Chief Whip of the Labour party could appoint an inspector to look at the weighing machine in the cloakroom downstairs. That weighing machine is used by weight-watchers in this place. I do not have to use it. However, the weight-watchers fiddle the machine, and I suspect that such a person would be given the job as an "authorised person". Such people could go to meetings of weight-watchers and say that they have lost three stone when they have not.

If such appointments were made, how would we guarantee that machines were in order? Let us suppose one of these machines for weighing was in Harrods. I guess that, in fact, there are many such machines in Harrods. Let us suppose that an authorised person, not an inspector, was appointed to see whether the machines in Harrods were working properly. It could be Tiny Rowland dressed up.

Would the telephone be bugged?

He has already bugged the telephone in Harrods. He could be an authorised person, or he could be called an observer. Or it could be Donald Trelford making inquiries for a new edition of The Observer. Such people could go to Harrods, under the guise of being an authorised person, supposedly an inspector, to see whether weighing machines were working properly and were tuned to take account of Common Market measurements. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who introduced the Bill said specifically that it was introduced so that we would be in advance of the Common Market in 1992.

So along goes this authorised person, probably Tiny Rowland, to Harrods to inspect the machines. What a time he would have. He could find out information on every single floor of Harrods. He could draw up another report for the Department of Trade and Industry. That report could be leaked and printed in a special edition of The Observer. That is the sort of danger that could occur under subsection (5). Any authorised person could go along to Harrods saying that he was an inspector under this Bill passed by the Tory Government.

The Consumers Association has set out its objections in a brief that it sent to hon. Members. Its main objection is that manufacturers and installers are likely to be the repairers of such weighing machines. That is an interesting point, which needs exploring.

I have here the brief from the Consumers Association. As the Chair knows—

The Chairman.

Whatever it is. If we want to have a discussion about whether to say "Chair" or "Chairman" we can have one. We can discuss it as we debate clause 2 of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, but I do not think that Mr. Walker wants that. He is shaking his head. It is pretty clear that he is on my side. He wants to talk about the things in the Bill, such as authorised persons. He probably wants me to talk at length about whether the lawyers have drawn up a dodgy Bill for the Government because they are fed up to the back teeth with all the attacks made on their profession by Lord Mackay. However, that is another question.

The authorised person is an important issue. This is a weakness of the Bill, because it is saying to the people involved in manufacturing this equipment, "Don't worry about how good or bad it is because instead of having proper authorised inspectors to test it we will send along people who are one of us. They will be Tory-authorised persons, who will just go along, take a cursory glance at a machine and say, 'It's all right. Everything's in order'", when all of us know that we are not getting the proper weight for our goods.

The Tory Government have drawn up this Bill and then passed it to a Back Bencher. He has naively and innocently—no, not innocently. I have seen him talking to people who have something to do with this dodgy Bill. He has come along thinking that he can hoodwink us on this Friday morning, but I have this document from the Consumers Association. The Consumers Association is the body that produces that well-known publication Which?, about which I was talking when I was interrupted by the Secretary of State for Health.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Yes, because my hon. Friend is a lawyer.

My hon. Friend expressed concern about whether things would improve if Donald Trelford went into Harrods to inspect the weighing machines. Will my hon. Friend come down on one side or the other? Does he prefer the A1-Fayed standards of fair trading or the Lonrho standards?

I am pretty well disposed to the idea that the big battalions in the Tory party or close to the Tory party are cutting one another's throats. When I see the A1-Fayeds, probably supplied with the Sultan of Brunei's funny money—he is a friend of the Prime Minister and of her son—falling out with the unacceptable face of capitalism, I think to myself, "There is a chance for Socialism here."

The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with clause 2. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was trying to get me to talk about the standards of fair trading in Harrods, and whether it was bought properly. I am not going to go down that road—not now—because I do not have the report from the Department of Trade and Industry in my hand. I did not expect to be discussing it this morning. If I had brought the report, I could have read out large chunks of it, and that would have been a story as well. It would probably have got more coverage than the statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the Vale of Glamorgan settlement with the doctors.

The Consumers Association sent us a brief—I hope that my hon. Friends will listen carefully to this, because it is no small point—in which it says that it was not properly consulted about this Bill. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who has introduced this Bill with the connivance of the Tory Government, did not properly consult the Consumers Association. The Government talk about being the friend of the consumer, but they did not consult the body that for many years has been well known as representing consumers' interests. The second paragraph of the brief says:

"Consumers Association's objection to the Bill is that it seeks to introduce only those recommendations which would be of benefit to those connected with the manufacturing industry, without adequate safeguards to protect the consumer."

That sentence tells us everything about the Bill.

That is not inconsistent with the legislation passed in the past 10 years. The Government should at least get one point for consistency. It is as well that my hon. Friend was here this morning early on, and able to scrutinise the Bill. From what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, he consulted nobody and nobody consulted him. The Bill would have gone through without proper scrutiny were it not for the vigilance of hon. Members.

We have had to do this on a number of Fridays. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was to have introduced the Bill on another occasion, but disappeared from view. We were here about four Fridays ago discussing the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, which was aimed at repealing the Clean Air Act 1956. My hon. Friend will understand our astonishment when we saw that that was the Government's aim. When we scrutinised the Bill, we found that it would only amend the Clean Air Act. They had got it wrong. The Government lawyers, or the Government themselves, had produced a Bill that would do the opposite of what was intended. As a result of some close scrutiny over about three or four hours, we managed to persuade the House—it was one of those great victories that one can sometimes get on a Friday—that the amendments should be withdrawn before the Bill was passed.

We scrutinised that Bill as we are scrutinising this Bill, and we are able to show that the Consumers Association has a good argument. The Bill would have been nodded through this morning, in the wake of the by-election results, which some people are still studying. Some are active in their constituencies, but two or three of us managed to spot what was happening. Amendment after amendment was tumbling through the House without proper scrutiny and we stopped that. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) spoke at some length on this.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who was alert to this measure and what it could do. My hon. Friend spoke about Which? and paid tribute to it. Like my hon. Friend, it is the consumers' friend. Will not this measure, with its reference to the "authorised person" create problems for Which? Like many other people, I get the magazine, which shows all that one can buy in various lines. Will it not have immense problems with its reports? It will have to print, "Look out for 'authorised persons' stamped on it because we cannot say that the product that we tested is the one that you are buying or that it uses the right measures." The Bill will create immense problems for consumer magazines such as Which? in getting its information across clearly to consumers.

That is the idea. The Government want to put consumers' interests at the bottom of the pile. They are interested only in people like the manufacturers of this equipment. No doubt, if we looked into where the profits of such manufacturers went, we would find some finishing up in the pocket of the Tory party. Instead of there being inspectors, there will be "authorised persons" who may allow changes, notwithstanding all the efforts made by the Consumers Association and Which?, which my hon. Friend apparently reads every week, along with defence magazines and other publications. I did not realise that my hon. Friend was reading so much material every day, and I commend him for that. I have only a cursory glance at Which? every now and again when a relevant Bill is coming before the House.

The Government are interested not in consumers but in profits for manufacturers. If they make machines that are dodgy and they are allowed to do so, they will make bigger profits. If that happens, they will say, "Well, it's pay-up day. The Tories have done us a good turn in Parliament". They will know that the Bill was smuggled through very nicely and that Labour Members were not ready for it. They will ask themselves what to do and the answer will be to give the Tory party a large sum of money, on top of what they have always given, for the next general election.

It is payola.

That is the word—my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, uses such subtle terms. I am not sure whether it is a legal term.

Make no mistake, when the Government introduce Bills into the House they have three things in mind: to hammer the working-class, cut taxes for the wealthy and make big profits for the manufacturers who will put money into the Tory party funds. That is their policy in a nutshell. Such Bills should be in the Queen's Speech. If the Government want to introduce Bills of a political nature, why should they be allowed to let private Members smuggle them through? They are taking up time on a Friday when proper Bills could be introduced.

I can think of two or three Bills that should be discussed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has got a great Bill, which is designed to give pensioners proper living standards and proper pensions. It would ensure that they no longer pay standing charges. The Prime Minister does nol pay standing charges at No. 10, nor does she pay rent or rates. It is costing £5 million a year to run Downing street—more than it costs to run Buckingham palace. We should be discussing a proper private Member's Bill that would give pensioners a square deal as well as concessionary fares, not just in London and not just for part of the day. Instead of Ministers being carted about from one oak panelled study to the next in ministerial cars, with free drivers, we could have old-age pensioners travelling the country. That would be a proper Bill to discuss on Friday instead of—

Order. We should be discussing the stamping of equipment by authorised persons.

I want to stamp the concessionary passes for bus and rail travel for pensioners. You understand that, Mr. Walker, as you are close to getting one if you have not already got one. What would be better than to have a comprehensive bus and rail pass for every pensioner in Britain?

Ministers talk about market forces, but the moment they reach 60 or 65 they get their bus pass. I saw Lord Keith Joseph getting his photo done and I wondered, "What is he getting his photo taken for?". It was for a bus pass. When he was a Minister he was the guru of market forces, but the moment he was no longer a Minister he was into public expenditure in a big way.

We want machines to stamp the passes and to produce them.

Not weighing machines.

We would need measuring machines. Is the Minister saying that such passes could be churned out willy-nilly? Oh no. Something would be needed to measure and weigh any form of equipment used to produce those passes. We want inspectors rather than authorised persons to do that.

What about self-authorisation by the pensioner?

We could have that if necessary and if we had such a truly libertarian society that would be nirvana.

Here we are on a Friday morning discussing a tinpot Bill, which has not been properly drawn up by Government lawyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is a lawyer and I have already explained why the Bill has not been drawn up properly—one of the Tories spilt the beans. There are lawyers in the Government who are so frustrated at the reforms that have been suggested in the other place that they are beginning to put Bills before the House that are deliberately drawn up in a vague and obscure way. It is clear that they have said, "To hell with the Government. We'll give them a Bill that will cause some trouble." Such Bills have been drawn up by someone, in a moment of frustration over the new attack upon the legal fraternity. Those Bills are not the genuine article. That is why we have to scrutinise Bills even more nowadays, especially after the other day when we discussed a Bill that intended to repeal the Clean Air Act when it should have read "amend". I smelt a rat.

This is tedious repetition.

The hon. Gentleman did not have the guts to take on the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) when she appeared before him in the Select Committee on Agriculture. He did not ask her any of the right questions and yet he has the cheek to talk to me about tedious repetition. He should have used some tediously repetitive questions that day instead of being treated the way he was by that hon. Lady.

Order. All of this is a long way from clause 2 and is irrelevant to the stand part debate.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who originally referred to the Consumers Association, wants to make another reference to that matter.

The authorised person mentioned in clause 2 would replace local authority officers. When such officers are looking after the interests of consumers, they are subject to some form of democratic accountability. If people are authorised as suggested in the Bill, that would diminish, to some extent the relationship between democratic accountability and the inspectors. If my hon. Friend looks at the back page of the Bill, he will realise that it will probably cost jobs in local authorities. What does my hon. Friend think about the weakening of the democratic process as proposed in the Bill?

Some time ago, representatives of the Labour local authorities, who are opposed to the Bill, sent us information about it when it first appeared on the agenda. It is probable that the environmental health department of local authorities employs such inspectors. If the Bill goes through, we shall have authorised persons, without proper credentials, doing the job. They could be taking a back-hander from companies—think about it.

Clause 2(5) states:

"there shall be inserted the words 'or authorised person"'.

Suppose people come along who are not properly accredited, not connected to the local authority and therefore not subject to any public accountability. Suppose they are in the pay of the company concerned. We would have a real mess on our hands. There is a sinister side to the clause.

In the past few months everyone has been conscious about safety and the Government have sent Ministers to tell us how concerned they are about safety in this, that or the other. But here we are, the Government have connived with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare—he has admitted that the Bill was drafted by Governmnt lawyers. That Bill will reduce inspectors' ability to do their job and it will allow any authorised person to take on that job. There is no doubt that this is not just an ordinary, innocent little measure contained in a Private Member's Bill.

My hon. Friend said that the local authorities are aware of what is proposed in the Bill. If I remember aright, Derbyshire county council was way out in front by spotting it first. It informed my hon. Friend about the Bill and yet other hon. Members who represent Derbyshire and who sit on the Conservative Benches have criticised that council for the amount of money that it spends, but it appears to be spending it in the right direction.

It made representations in the middle of all the Government attacks upon it. There was a happy ending, because, despite all the targeting by the Tories, Derbyshire Labour authorities had a great success yesterday and now have 52 Labour members out of 84 seats. A seat was won by Labour next door to me, in Brackenfield. It was a great victory.

Here comes more praise for Bookbinder.

The hon. Gentleman does not like it whenever I mention a great victory in Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman, who is as partisan as any right hon. or hon. Member, does not like it, but he must lump it.

Order. No matter how great the victory, it has no relevance to clause 2.

Yes, it does. Derbyshire county council, fortified by that victory at Brackenfield, will say, "We were right to make representations about that distorted weights and measures Bill. We shall carry on our campaign in the knowledge that we have won another seat from the Tories and have a mandate." Although that council was saying, at the tether end of a four-year period, that we should oppose the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, it—together with Nottinghamshire county council, in which Labour also made gains yesterday—will be able to say, "We were right to send messages to our Members of Parliament that they should oppose the Bill. The electors realise that the Tory Government are not on the side of the consumers, but only on the side of the manufacturers."

Not that there are many manufacturers. The question must be asked whether there will be Japanese machines or more Japanese machines? Will those firms have their own inspectors? If there are to be more Japanese manufacturers, where will their factories be located? Is the Bill part of the build-up to 1992? Will the Japanese manufacture machines in various parts of Great Britain so that they can overcome the barriers against third countries and invade the Common Market? Such a thing is conceivable. Account should be taken of the Japanese element. There will be many more Japanese manufacturers in the future, but many other factories will be closed.

What will happen if the authorised person is Japanese and does not speak English?

One may ask why the Japanese are coming to Britain rather than the French or Germans. Suppose that the Japanese spot the Bill and say to themselves, "Here is another little niche." The reason that the Japanese come to Britain is that their second language is English, which is not the case with the French or Germans. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare considered that aspect, or perhaps the Government have but did not tell him.

My hon. Friend has not addressed the point that the authorised person must be appointed by the Secretary of State. The idea behind that is to centralise control away from local authorities. How will the Secretary of State know that the person who authorises is capable of performing the duties involved?

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, because in Wales another Secretary of State may be responsible. If the Secretary of State for Wales is made responsible for implementing one part of the Bill, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is made responsible for another, there is bound to be conflict. It is almost certain that the Secretary of State for Wales will come up with another coded message. We may not immediately understand it, and shall have to wait for the newspapers to do so. The Secretary of State for Wales will brief the press, saying, "When you read my speech on Monday, it will seem a bit vague and abstract, and a particular line should be explained as follows." We will pick up the newspapers and suddenly read a massive attack by the Secretary of State for Wales on the Prime Minister. The ordinary person may read that speech and be unable to piece it together, but it is the Lobby briefing that matters.

Much will depend on whether the Secretary of State for Wales keeps his job. I think that the right hon. Lady will sack him. That point is worth discussing at some other time, but 1 think that the right hon. Gentleman will get the chop after what he has been doing of late. It is just a question of the Prime Minister thinking to herself,"I can leave him there for the moment and blame him for the by-election defeat." I understand that the Vale of Glamorgan by-election has just been announced.

What does that by-election have to do with clause 2?

I will explain what it has to do with clause 2. Under the Bill, any authorised person can do what they like. A person can masquerade and enter a building saying, "Where is your weighing machine? I am an authorised person." Somebody could walk into a BBC studio and ask, "Where is your weighing machine? I am an authorised person."—and then walk into the studio, get on television, and announce the result of the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. That is what could happen.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting digression about the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. I am sure that his comments are right and that the Labour majority has been huge. My hon. Friend is rightly suspicious about the Bill. Some years ago, the Government allowed not just building inspectors appointed by local authorities—which they still are up to a point—but others to do a similar job. Those other inspectors can be associated with a particular company. A person inspecting a building to ensure that it meets building regulations could be someone who is associated with the company constructing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned, and I should like him to take that aspect into consideration. It is clear that the Government lawyers are only following the path that they have been wanting to follow for many years.

The Bill represents a relaxation of rules that have been observed for many years. The Consumers Association briefing points out that the existing form of weights and measures has endured for 100 years, but the Government want to break it. We would all agree with the Government if they wanted to tighten up the legislation. If the Government lawyers who drafted the Bill—as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare admitted was the case—had tightened up the existing provisions, we would have said, "It is not a bad Bill and we shall give it a bit of a decent ride on a Friday. It looks as though the hon. Gentleman has introduced a Bill that will assist the consumer." But when one examines the Bill, one finds that it relaxes the existing rules, so that instead of having inspectors, there will be authorised persons who could be in the Tory party and who, in the words of the Prime Minister, could be "one of us". Those manufacturers will not be too concerned about their product.

Let us think about this. There will be weighing machines at the entrance to the Channel tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) laughs, but I can see it happening. And what kind of inspector is going to go there? Goods will be travelling not only to the 12 countries in the Common Market, but to countless others. The machines might have to measure in ecus, for instance—that is one of the new words that have come from the Common Market.

The entrance to the Channel tunnel is a dangerous place. Are we to allow an "authorised person" who is not a properly trained inspector to turn up there saying, "I am an authorised person. I have come to check this very important machine at the entrance to the Channel tunnel."? He might be someone who could be described as a terrorist, wanting to go beyond the weighing machine and into the tunnel.

12.30 pm

People will say—as they do now when there has been an accident—"Fancy that. Were there no proper health and safety inspectors?". We shall say, "No, because the Government have cut them back." Every time that inspections are cut back in this highly technological age it opens the door for accidents. That is another reason why we must oppose the idea of the authorised person as proposed in subsection (5). We might have to force it to a vote—and, judging by the ranks on the Conservative Benches, we might be successful. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has already agreed to withdraw subsection (4) because it has been found to be faulty.

May I quote briefly from a letter from Cleveland county council objecting to the Bill? The letter says:

"The Bill is being promoted by Jerry Wiggin MP (Weston Super Mare) who, amongst a clutch of interests, acts as a consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers."

I have declared my interest.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has done that. Is it not a possibility, however, that the Secretary of State, who has taken powers to appoint authorised persons, would say to the hon. Gentleman, "You have been a good boy, getting this Bill through for the Government. I shall make you the authorised person." The hon. Gentleman could then go back to his friends the manufacturers and tell them to do what they liked.

I do not think that the Government would be as blatant as that. The hon. Gentleman has admitted a direct financial interest.

But he would not be qualified as a local councillor.

He would be disqualified. I may be being over-fair to the Government, beyond the bounds of reason, but I do not think that they would be so blatant. They would probably appoint someone just a step away to try to make it look right and proper.

Given all the inadequacies found in it this morning, I do not think that the Bill will get through.

We must wait and see.

Yes, there is plenty of time, but many Labour Members are now beginning to represent the views of consumers. I note that the SLD and SDP Members have left. I say this merely in passing, but they play a very poor role in the House. They simply do not do their job. Some lawyer flitted in earlier and asked a question on the statement by the Secretary of State for Health, but then they all left. Where are they? Are they moping because they had a bad night at the election? A representative should be present.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous scope for political patronage in the appointment of the authorised person? In the debate on the Widdicombe report, Labour Members were criticised for twin-tracking, but let us reflect on the scope for twin-tracking of unemployable Conservative supporters who might be appointed to "authorised person" posts all over the country. Were the business interests of the Prime Minister's son in Dallas to fall flat on their face, would there not be a risk of his emerging in this country as an authorised person? Then there is the grandson. In my view there is enormous scope for serious misuse of the powers of patronage.

There are all those possibilities. I am not so sure that the Prime Minister would be too keen to let Mark have a job as an authorised person because he would lose his way. He would finish up looking for weighing machines in the desert. That is why they have all this electronic tagging. The Government first thought of that when he got lost in the desert. They said, "That's a good idea." That is why the Government have introduced electronic tagging, but I think that Mark would be a little unreliable.

To sum up—

Before my hon. Friend does that, is there not another angle? My hon. Friend referred to Conservatives being encouraged to take on the job of an authorised person. No doubt they would consider taking low earnings for it. The Government have created millions of lower-paid jobs. If they could convince Conservatives to take it on, would they not hope that that would influence other people to take lower-paid jobs and to continue to suffer under this Administration?