HC Deb 01 July 1996 vol 280 cc603-22

'.—(1) In exercising their powers under this Act and the 1990 Act, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority ("the relevant authorities") shall have as their principal objective to secure that programmes included in any service licensed under either Act shall, taking the relevant service as a whole—

  1. (a) be of a consistently high quality; and
  2. (b) contain a suitable proportion of original material produced, or predominantly produced, in the United Kingdom.

(2) "Suitable proportion" in subsection (1) above shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance which shall be issued by the relevant authorities.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 35—Duty of Commission and authorities to promote quality etc., in television and radio services in Wales— '.—It shall be the principal duty of the Independent Television Commission, the Welsh Authority and the Radio Authority, in exercising their powers under this Act and the 1990 Act, to secure that the programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales are of a consistently high quality and that they reflect, taking the relevant service as a whole—

  1. (a) the tastes and interests of all communities living in Wales; and
  2. (b) the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales.'.

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13.

Mr. Mullin

May I begin by thanking my hon. Friends for the backing that they have given to this new clause? It is not every day that my name appears on the amendment paper above that of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not suppose that will happen often in the future. I am grateful none the less.

New clause 4 seeks to repair one of the fundamental omissions from this Bill—the absence of any requirement that programme quality be taken into account when licences are allocated. It seeks to do this in two ways. First, it will enable the ITC to take into account the quality of the service proposed by the applicant. As the Bill stands, the nearest we get to laying down minimum standards is the requirement in clause 8(2)(d) that the service shall appeal to a variety of tastes and interests". That, as I shall argue in a moment, is wholly inadequate.

Secondly, the new clause will ensure that the material broadcast shall contain a suitable proportion of original British-made programmes. I say "original" because I would not want the purpose of the new clause to be subverted by the endless recycling of second-hand material, whether produced in Britain or anywhere else. As to what constitutes a "suitable" proportion, that would be for the ITC to judge, taking into account all the circumstances—including the fact that, initially, it might be necessary to exercise leniency until the new service was up and running.

In due course, I see no reason why the proportion of British-made programmes on digital television should not be similar to that expected of terrestrial television. It is important to make clear from the outset to the providers of digital television that we do not wish to be swamped by a tidal wave of American junk. Nor do we wish to see our television production industry go the same way as our film industry. We have an excellent domestic television industry and, in particular, we have a thriving independent sector. We do not want to see it undermined—we want it to be encouraged.

6.15 pm

It will not have escaped the notice of those who advise Ministers that the application of new clause 4 is considerably wider than any amendment moved in Committee. It provides the ITC with powers to enforce minimum standards not merely upon applicants for multiplex licences, but on applicants who come within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990. As clause 45 of the 1990 Act makes clear, this includes non-domestic satellite television—in other words, Sky Television.

For reasons at which one can only guess, Sky has been exempt from the requirement imposed on terrestrial commercial television that a given percentage of its output must be British-made and original. Sky spends almost nothing on original production apart from news and sport, with the result that it is free to import—often from other parts of the Murdoch empire—American and Australian movies and soaps at a fraction of the costs that its terrestrial rivals have to spend on producing original material. It is hard to think of anything more calculated to undermine the quality of British television.

I am sure that Sky's exemption from the rules that apply to its commercial rivals has been a factor in the desperate spiral of cost-cutting and ratings chasing that has afflicted British television in the past six years. I do not know how this extraordinary arrangement came about. It has been suggested that Margaret Thatcher sent a draft of the 1990 Act to Mr. Murdoch's lawyers, who simply deleted the parts that they did not like. That is one possibility. Another justification was that Sky's start-up costs were so massive and the risk so great that it would have been unreasonable to expect it to meet the same standards as its commercial rivals. I am not sure whether that argument ever held water, but if it did, it has long since been overtaken by events. Sky is now seven years old, and is highly profitable. It is about time that it was required to operate on a level playing field. New clause 4 will provide the regulators with powers to make sure that it does.

I now return to the argument about quality. I read the Minister's speech on this issue in Committee and, frankly, I was confused by it. On the one hand, he appeared to argue that the Bill already provided the regulator with powers to insist on minimum standards of programming. On the other hand, he argued that any safeguards would place an unreasonable burden upon investors. He cannot have it both ways. As regards his suggestion that variety was an adequate substitute for quality, that was admirably disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who said that the Oxford English dictionary defined variety as "the absence of monotony". Is that the best that we can hope for from this wonderful new technology? Should we not be a little more ambitious?

The Minister argued that we must allow multiplex providers to give viewers what they want—the very argument that has given us The Sun and has dragged the rest of our tabloid newspapers into the gutter to compete. I do not want to see the same thing happening to our television. None of us should pretend that we know what the viewers want, but of one thing I am certain—unless we insist upon the enforcement of minimum standards from the outset, the viewers will get what is cheapest and most profitable for directors and shareholders. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in Committee to say how we could prevent a decision by one operator to go down market from dragging others down with it, the Minister said that there was "every reason to hope" that the quality of channels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be imported into the new digital services. He continued: We shall have to wait and see."—[Official Report, Standing Committer D. 25 April 1996; c. 64.] For my part, I am not prepared to wait and see, or to rely on hope. All the evidence from at home and abroad suggests that once one surrenders decisions about quality entirely to the market, the trend is remorselessly downhill. As for the quality of channels 1, 2, 3 and 4—we are still awaiting channel 5—which the Minister hopes will be imparted to the digital services, there has been a dramatic decline in quality since the wave of mergers triggered by the 1990 Act. The knowledge that the first two digital multiplexes will go to the holders of existing franchises gives me no confidence.

The only way to guarantee minimum standards is to provide the regulator with power to enforce them. That is what I am proposing. In Committee, the Minister said that the dominant criterion by which the ITC will judge applicants is the degree to which the application … is likely to advance the cause of digitalisation in this country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 April 1996; c. 66.] Never mind the quality, feel the width—that is precisely the philosophy that will lead us down the road to ruin. In the long term, it will not be the standards of terrestrial channels that set the pace for digital television, but the opposite. Digital could undermine the standards that we are struggling to maintain on the other channels. We will end up with a tabloid TV—50 or 500 channels, but nothing worth watching on any of them.

If the Government are not willing to take into account the Opposition's fears or those of many in the industry, for example those associated with the Campaign for Quality Television, one might expect them to listen to the ITC, which was set up precisely to regulate the industry. I presume that the ITC—or, I would presume it if the Minister were anywhere to be seen—enjoys the confidence of Ministers. It would be a strange affair if it did not. What does the ITC have to say on the issue? I will quote from a briefing that has no doubt been circulated for the Report stage to all hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee, which states: Despite widespread agreement concerning the need to empower the ITC to take these matters into consideration when analysing applications for multiplex service licences, it is by no means certain that the ITC will have sufficient statutory powers to exercise discretion in these areas. If this uncertainty remains, the ITC believes the legislation could actively prohibit"— that is underlined— consideration of these factors in the licensing process.

At the end of the debate in Committee, the Minister undertook to go away and reflect on the quality of what he called "the backstops". I gather that amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are the product of his reflections. If that is so, I can say only that they are obscure. Their purpose may be clear to the fine legal minds who advise Ministers, but they are not clear to me or to the people whom I have consulted.

At the end of last week, I asked the ITC whether the amendments had resolved the problem from its point of view. I was told that they would make no significant difference. If the Government are committed to maintaining the quality of British television, as they claim, why cannot they say so unambiguously in the Bill? That is the purpose of new clause 4 and I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham

First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on the new clause and his speech in introducing it. I enjoyed the sight of his name alongside that of our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and mine on the amendment paper—long may it continue.

New clause 4 encapsulates all the important arguments that took place in the Committee in this House and in another place and on Second Reading. Consistently, we have heard from Ministers that the provisions of schedule 7 to the Bill would allow a carry-over of the powers and duties of the Independent Television Commission from the 1990 Act. Those duties under section 2 require the Commission to discharge its functions in the manner which they consider is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests.

At the end of the Committee stage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made clear, the ITC was still not convinced that it had been given the necessary powers. The Minister said: the lawyers still cannot make up their minds about the exact wording."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 June 1996; c. 765.] He promised to write to all members of the Committee setting out the exact situation. That he has done. In the past few days, he has begun to catch up on his correspondence. We have had a series of letters from him about matters contained in the Bill. I shall quote the letter from the Minister of State, who said: I am sorry that in expounding this case I inadvertently misled the Committee on the relatively technical question of the application of Section 2 of the 1990 Act". It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misled the Committee and, of course, we accept his apology. That is not the problem and it is not surprising because he was trying to reconcile two almost exactly opposite points of view. On the one hand, in the letter, he was saying, It remains the Government's view that quality should not be a distinct criterion in the award of multiplex licences. That is the Minister's and the Government's view. However, he then went on to say: There are, however, two particular respects in which, in our view, the ITC will be able to take account of quality considerations". The Government say that they do not want quality to be a specific consideration, but they want nevertheless to take into account quality issues. That is contradictory and the Government had every opportunity to make their mind up on the matter and to clarify the situation.

The reality is that the body that will have to implement this part of the Act—the ITC—remains unconvinced that the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State today are sufficient to give it the clarity and certainty that it requires. The ITC believes that any exercise of those powers to decide between digital programme service providers could, as the proposals stand, leave the ITC open to legal challenge, which would obviously be highly unsatisfactory.

The reality is also that quality of programming and quality controls in television exercise people in all parties and also exercise the public a great deal. Although the amendments about the V-chip are grouped separately, there is a link between what we are discussing, the new clause and the subsequent amendments—how the statutory bodies of government and we as legislators protect people from gratuitous violence and other unsatisfactory and unacceptable productions on television.

New clause 4 seems to be the right way to proceed—by allowing an explicit reference to the power to consider quality when judging programme services. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been able to be quite clear about that in the new clause. The Government have deliberately chosen not to select that as a criterion and have obfuscated the issue, as the Minister's letter makes clear.

The new clause also gives the regulators powers to consider issues relating to original material and United Kingdom-based productions, which are particularly important to our audio-visual industries. It also extends to radio, an area that the Government have completely ignored. That alone renders their amendments unsatisfactory.

I urge the House to support new clause 4.

6.30 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin): we see eye to eye on many issues. However, if he had used the word "channels" rather than the phrase programmes included in any service", the wording would have been much more specific, and it might not have been so easy for the authorities to wriggle out of it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that is far too easy under the current drafting.

Anyone who has BSkyB, or watches it regularly, will know that its channels conform to everything in the new clause. TNT, for instance, shows old films predominantly—six or seven a day. Most are English, feature Jack Hawkins commanding a submarine and have been on television 15 times before, but they nevertheless fall within the criteria laid down in the new clause. Bravo shows films dating back to the 1950s; UK Gold features non-stop repeats of British programmes—yard after yard of "EastEnders" and "The Bill". Recently, it has shown all the Morecambe and Wise programmes, "The Two Ronnies", "Poldark", "Elizabeth R", "I, Claudius" and "Minder".

The whole nation enjoyed that marvellous television in the 1970s, and I very much enjoyed watching it for the second time. Often, when I leave the House at midnight—not feeling very tired—and there is nothing else on television, I watch a 1977 repeat of "Match of the Day". That is wonderful football. It is possible to watch recordings of historic sporting events, all of them British and original. All that stuff of which we are so proud is on satellite television—on BSkyB, for instance. The Discovery channel shows wonderful documentaries. Whether they feature jackboots marching into Poland, Adolf Hitler or the history of the Ford motor car, they are far better than anything that is produced now.

BSkyB would accept the new clause. The old British stuff that is shown on perhaps 10 of its channels far outweighs the new American stuff. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully. His intentions in regard to quality and standards are admirable, but he must be more specific.

Mr. Dafis

I support the new clause, because I believe that we need guarantees on quality. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, when there is intense competition it is easy for standards to fall. In Committee, I gave an example of the kind of reduction in quality that we have seen since the 1990 Act, specifically in the case of documentaries on third world and environmental issues which are produced on commercial channels. In many instances, there has been a reduction of some 40 per cent. in such coverage. It is a worrying trend.

I take it that, in referring to "high quality" and taking the relevant service as a whole", the new clause encompasses such considerations. I could not regard a service as being of high quality unless it dealt, seriously and educationally, with the major issues of our time. Surely the issue of environmental sustainability and third world development is the big issue of our time. It is deeply depressing to see serious coverage of such matters diminishing. It is with that thought in mind that I shall vote for the new clause.

I am glad to note that new clause 35 deals with the same issue in a Welsh context. It also asks for a mechanism to allow consideration of Welsh broadcasting in its entirety, which we certainly need. Wales has three programme providers, which are in competition with each other but collaborating and co-operating at the same time. It is that second aspect that needs to be strengthened. Like others, I would like a proper, comprehensive study of the Welsh broadcasting scene to be conducted, examining ways in which it can be developed in the round.

The new clause refers to programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales". I take it that that makes it possible for us to discuss the BBC, which is a crucial element in co-operation on the Welsh scene. The BBC should recognise its responsibility, especially in regard to the amount of central funding that it provides for Wales. Between 1992 and 1996, its income from licences increased by about 14.7 per cent. I believe that funds for the BBC in Wales have increased at a much lower rate—by about a third of that amount. That is not good enough. Funds for the BBC in Wales are crucial. The BBC supplies 10 hours a week for S4C, and I understand that it regards that as fulfilling its responsibility for Wales; but it is not satisfactory.

Let me say a little about the reorganisation of the BBC that is currently proposed, and the effect that it may have in Wales. One member of the BBC's board of governors was responsible for regional broadcasting; now, one member of the new BBC broadcasting unit will be responsible for regional and educational broadcasting and a number of other important services. There is a danger that the whole regional dimension will suffer, and Wales will certainly be included in that decline.

The new clause refers to the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales". I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will speak about the English language heritage of Wales in that context, and—if I may anticipate him—I agree entirely with what he will say. One of the big deficiencies in Welsh television provision is that that English-speaking culture, and the vitality of the English dialects that are spoken in Wales, are not reflected.

It often strikes me that journalists and announcers on BBC Wales and HTV speak not with any kind of Welsh accent, but in monotonous, boring received-pronunciation English. Sometimes they aspire even higher, and go for cut-glass English. The result is often comical. I consider cut-glass English comical in any event, but when it is spoken by people who are obviously affecting it and have had elocution lessons in order to do so, it is grotesque.

Language is an important part of culture and diversity, and dialect is part of that. I would welcome the comprehensive look at the broadcasting scene that new clause 35 encourages.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) ought to be central to any Bill about broadcasting. The issue of quality should not have been debated so late in the proceedings on the Bill. I know that it was considered in Committee, but it should have been central to the original legislation, as it should have been central to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which caused such damage to the whole of British broadcasting.

Too many people—even people who work in broadcasting—see quality of programming as secondary to the delivery system. I do not mind whether programmes come by digital methods or, provided everyone has access to them, by cable, satellite or terrestrial means. What matters is the quality of the programme that comes by this miraculous medium. I worked in the industry for a while, but I did not understand how it worked. I was concerned about the quality of the picture that came out at the end. Quality should be central to our consideration and legislation.

The idea that profoundly divides the Conservatives and the Opposition is that quality programming can somehow happen by accident, or, as I suppose they would say, as a result of market forces. All the experience of the media in Britain is that that simply is not true. If I were to caricature the difference between the broadcast medium and the print medium—the newspapers—I would say that the broadcast medium has been subject to broad democratic control and regulation whereas the print medium has not. If I asked any neutral observer anywhere in the world whether British broadcasting or British newspapers had the highest reputation and the highest quality and which was to be admired and emulated. the answer would be broadcasting, not the print. There is a lesson there for us all to learn.

Any cursory reading of the history of the industry shows perfectly well that, if we want quality programming, we must find means of ensuring that it exists, as the new clause seeks to do in a modest way. I could think of several amendments to it. I shall describe briefly for the Government's benefit, if they will listen, even at this late stage, how quality programming can be achieved.

For a start, we need to provide for television skills in the industry. The multitude of skills that go towards making a television programme do not come out of thin air. They are created as a result of people working in the industry and being properly trained.

Where is the training coming from now? What is happening to all the people who now work for small production companies who previously worked for the BBC or ITV and received their training there? I do not knock the small production companies, but they are living off the skills of the past; off the skills of people who received their training in the BBC and ITV. What does the Bill say about training in relation to quality programming? Nothing.

My next comment may seem old-fashioned to Conservative Members, but I make no apology for it. If we want quality programming, we must provide some security of employment and a career structure. People need to know that, if they try their best to make a decent programme one week and fail, there will be an opportunity to improve the following week and to learn from other people. There must be security in the industry.

6.45 pm

My hon. Friend's new clause implies, but does not spell out specifically, that centres of excellence are needed. He wants to include a requirement for British broadcasting. I strongly support that, but I would add to it. I know that he agrees with me. Such requirements would mean that regional centres of excellence would have to be established. It would not mean that everything would be made in central London.

I want regional centres of excellence, not only because I want employment in the regions, but because we lose the richness of the possibility of producing good-quality television programmes if we require most of the programme makers and producers to live and work in London.

I am not talking about regional programming in the patronising way that we so often hear from the Government Benches. Ministers say, "Oh well, they do their regional show at 6.30 and the regional news." I strongly support regional programming and news, but I want to see network programmes made in the regions by people in the regions with regional skills. That also contributes to quality programming.

Mr. Maxton

Does my hon. Friend agree that regional and national production by the BBC and the ITV companies is important not only in terms of broadcasting but in terms of the continuation of art and culture in the regions? Regional broadcasting centres provide stable employment for a large number of people who work in the theatre and other areas at the same time.

Mr. Grocott

I agree with my hon. Friend. So many of these industries are related to each other. People move from one to the other. If a television production centre is moved from a region, a great part of its—I do not want to sound too pompous—cultural and artistic capacity is also removed. We all know what has happened to regional centres of production. One of the staggering things about the Government's attitude to the Bill is that they seem to have learnt none of the lessons of the previous failed legislation. Any Government spokesman ought to start by apologising for the 1990 Act.

I can only speak about what has happened in Birmingham. At Central Television there were four thriving studios before all the machinations surrounding the 1990 Act. There was a range of programming—not only regional news. There were programmes for the network and everything else. That has all been diminished. Skilled people have left.

I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. If we are to get broadcasting back on the right track, we need to acknowledge that there must be a framework within which broadcasters operate which requires excellence and high standards. We need to stop bowing, as we constantly have under the Conservative Government, to the needs of advertisers and company mergers, and start listening a little more to the viewers and programme makers.

Some people may think that this is a trivial point, but I am afraid that I do not. One small example of the decline that has taken place as a result of the previous legislation is the ridiculous business of sponsorship of television programmes. Does it really add anything to the weather forecast that it is sponsored by PowerGen, "Bringing you electricity whatever the weather"? Does that improve the quality of the forecast? Does it add to the sum total of human understanding of the weather? Of course it does not.

That is an important example of the way in which the miraculous medium of television is not being used in the interests of quality programmes to enrich our lives, but is being subverted by the needs of accountants and advertisers. My hon. Friend's new clause goes some way to redressing the balance, and I strongly support it.

Mr. Rowlands

I wish to address my remarks to new clause 35, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) touched on. I make no apology for raising Welsh issues again, because one of the purposes of the Report stage of a Bill is to report to the House what changes the Committee has made to the Bill.

In the context of Welsh broadcasting, the Bill is radically different from that which entered Committee. It will transform the role of S4C in the digital age. Let me draw to the attention of the whole House exactly what those changes are.

First, there will be a major new role for S4C on multiplex 3. It will have a much larger role than was envisaged on Second Reading. Secondly, S4C will be freed to go into satellite, cable and radio in both the Welsh language and English. Thirdly, it will be expected to exploit its commercial potential on its new multiplex, with a new financial arrangement of a commercial character. Fourthly, it will have new opportunities to expand its language service, as Channel 4 in the digital age will be removed from the S4C programmes and become a service all of its own.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

My hon. Friend has touched on the financial arrangements and restructuring of S4C, but has he looked at the accountability of S4C, which receives a huge public subvention for programmes but is accountable to no one?

Mr. Rowlands

I should declare an interest when referring to S4C, because my wife is a member of the S4C authority, so I am accountable, if no one else is.

I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the commercial and funding arrangements governing the new functions of S4C will be kept separate from its existing functions. No public funds from S4C can be used for its commercial developments.

Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy)

Is not the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Rhondda that the S4C authority has to lay an annual report before the House?

Mr. Rowlands

Yes, it does, and that gives us an opportunity to debate it. The most recent one, in common with previous reports, continues to inform our debates.

I should like to draw specific attention to the other dimension to broadcasting in Wales—broadcasting in the English language. In some respects, other aspects of the Bill will have a disadvantageous effect upon the English language services and broadcasts in Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, we should be deeply concerned about the centralised role of the BBC.

The figures are quite astonishing—BBC Wales broadcasts in the English language contribute just 19 hours to the BBC network. That even contrasts poorly with the output in Scotland, which contributes 90 hours. Even more astonishing, the factual and documentary programmes provided by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales constitute just 1 per cent. of the total output. A major change of heart is needed by the BBC in relation to the two nations and the English regions.

I should like to draw the House's attention to the other means of English broadcasting in Wales—our commercial station, HTV. It will be greatly affected by the alterations in the Bill. The combined BBC and HTV investment in programmes in the English language adds up to only £25 million a year. That contrasts with the £63 million that is rightly dedicated to Welsh language programmes of S4C.

HTV will also be affected in three other serious ways, which will have a knock-on effect on potential English language broadcasts in Wales. First, in the past, HTV did not have to compete with Channel 4, because Channel 4 was part and parcel of S4C. The new Channel 4 in the digital age, however, will be a major competitor.

Secondly, £3 million from HTV will be returned to Channel 4, which is not committed to spending that money in Wales or in any of the other regions. Thirdly, HTV will face potential competition from S4C, which will have a role in one way or another in the production of English language programmes. On top of that, it is saddled with the incredible nonsense of the licensing arrangements that have led to HTV paying £23 million a year for its licence, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has already said, Central pays £250,000—

Mr. Grocott

It pays £2,000.

Mr. Rowlands

Compare that with the £23 million cost of the HTV licence. That cost is a major drain on the development of English language broadcasts in Wales.

Many of the changes in the Bill are most welcome in relation to S4C, but we must consider the disadvantages that may be suffered by English language programme making in Wales, particularly that of HTV.

There is one simple solution to the problem. The renegotiation of the licence should coincide with the changes that will result from the Bill. The disadvantages that HTV will suffer as a result of the Bill could be compensated by changes to the licensing arrangements. That alteration, combined with the demands that we should rightly be making upon the BBC nationally to amend its attitude to English language broadcasting in Wales, would offer a solution. We should have a much more balanced view of broadcasting in Wales.

I hope that, if nothing else, we have impressed upon the Minister and the Department today, as we did in Committee, that broadcasting in Wales is not just a matter of the Welsh language. It goes much broader than that, relating to the opportunity and potential talent of so many people in Wales to express their skills also in the English language.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I was the second Member to put my name to it, and, emboldened by my presence, others more distinguished than I followed. Perhaps they did not have the courage to do so until they saw our joint names on the new clause.

As my hon. Friend would expect, I express my support from a slightly different point of view, as someone—here I must declare an interest—who presents a political programme on Sky Television. I speak for freedom, truth and justice, and Lord Tebbit speaks from his point of view. We discuss the issues of the week.

I support the new clause because it is right in principle. I support it because the trade union representatives who came to speak to us about the Bill want some quality control and quality influence on the part of the ITC to be included in the Bill. It is right that that should be done.

I support the new clause because, at the moment, the ITC's powers are inadequate. Its basic powers are to see that people live up to the terms of their submission for a contract, and to exercise an effective control over regional programmes and the amount of production for local viewing in the regions. It should have some power over quality, and have the ability to edge companies up-market. It is not good enough merely to give it the negative power to say, "You've departed from your contract."

The quality power enshrined in the new clause is appropriate, because we have seen a deterioration in the quality of current affair programmes in particular. The production of such programmes is always difficult, because they do not win audiences as news and entertainment programmes do. When I used to work in current affairs, it was a golden rule that such a programme lost between one third and a half of the audience, perhaps because I was on such programmes, that it started out with. It would be difficult to persuade companies to produce quality current affairs programmes unless the ITC had some power to demand it.

I also support the new clause because digital represents a whole new ball game, in which we must try to seek some guarantee of standards. Competition in television is intensifying, and it is possible that we will see the same remorseless slide down-market as we have seen in the press.

The standards of popular television in this country are higher than those of the popular press. We have the least worst television in the world, and perhaps the least best popular press. Why? Because the competition is not as intense in television, and because television is regulated to maintain standards in a way that is not possible in the press. We need that type of regulation. The new clause addresses that important issue directly. That is why it is necessary.

I must enter a caveat, because satellite needs a slightly different approach. One cannot achieve a level playing field in respect of the British percentage of programmes or the definition of quality between satellite and cable on the one hand and terrestrial television on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out the differences, and said that many satellite programmes represent high quality and British production. It is certainly true that Sky One and Sky News have not gone down market as many people expected.

Satellite is different, because it does not have access to the privileged channels that terrestrial represents. Those channels are privileged, powerful and universal channels. Satellite has had to build its own audience in its own way, and in doing so, it has responded to different needs. One means of building an audience is through massive investment in British productions, because people here like British-produced programmes.

Given the way in which satellite was launched, however, it was impossible to fulfil that requirement in the same way as terrestrial has managed to do. Satellite has therefore built up its audience by approaching the task differently and by providing a different kind of programme. It will not be able to jump suddenly into the same kind of box of requirements now met by the terrestrial channels.

The future of television must lie in the fact that most people will turn for their basic viewing to the terrestrial channels. That is what happens still in the United States. There is a multiplicity of channels in that country, but between 60 and 70 per cent. of the audience still watch basic network television. The same will happen here. People will rely for basic viewing on network television—the bread and butter of television.

People will turn to cable, satellite, perhaps digital—that is difficult to make predictions about at the moment—to follow up specialised interests such as sport or news. I confess that I am a news freak. I love CNN and Sky News, because they make it possible to watch the news as it happens. It is exciting. Some people are news freaks; some people want a variety of films. They will turn to cable, satellite or digital for a diet supplement of their own specialised interest. It is difficult to regulate the quality or the British production on cable, satellite or digital television as we would terrestrial channels.

7 pm

It is right for the ITC to have power and influence, but it cannot have what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South urged it to have—an absolutely level playing field, with the same requirements imposed on both sides. Indeed, as I read it, the new clause does not require that, because it uses the words taking the relevant service as a whole"— that could be the channel in cable and satellite—and the requirement is to obtain a suitable proportion of original material". Suitability shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance which shall be issued". Inevitably, that suitability will be different for different channels on cable and satellite. We are saying not that the British content should be the same throughout, but that the ITC should have the power to edge up and raise standards.

Admittedly, quality is intangible. Some people assume that quality is taste. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South would admit "Blind Date" as a quality programme. I regard it as a quality programme. It has high production values, and it is entertaining and extremely well done. I am compelled to watch it because my wife loves it, so I do not have much alternative. Quality lies in production values, in training, as my hon. Friend said, and in the approach to programming, rather than in taste.

Television's role is to educate, inform and entertain. To do so, we must be able to ensure quality programming, maintain quality standards and give the ITC the power to keep pushing them up, to maintain the pressure, to review the position continually and to keep reviewing the British content. That is extremely important, because commercial pressures, which will intensify as we get more channels, are pushing things the other way. We want the ITC to have the power to combat that, to have its own role as it once did and should again, to maintain the quality we believe we have in British television, which we are entitled to maintain.

Mr. Stephen Timms (Newham, North-East)

I support the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, in Committee the Minister's position on quality was initially somewhat confused, but in discussion it became much clearer. He was pressed by Opposition members of the Committee on that point and, in response, said that, in his view, the Bill did allow the ITC to apply quality criteria by inheritance from the Broadcasting Act 1990, and that, other things being equal, the ITC could use quality as one of its criteria in determining digital licence applications. That is explicit, for example, in columns 66 and 68 of the Committee Hansard.

However, the ITC advised us throughout that that interpretation of the Bill was factually incorrect, and that the Bill did not give those powers to the commission. The Minister assured us that those fears were groundless, but now, in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned a few moments ago, the Minister has accepted that the ITC was right, that he was mistaken, and that he inadvertently misled the Committee on that point.

What is really worrying is the part of the Minister's letter in which he spells out to the Committee the reality of this inheritance from the 1990 Act. I know, because I spoke to the ITC this afternoon, that it is dismayed about what the letter says. It says: the ITC will be constrained in awarding licences to do so on the basis of the criteria set out in Clause 8". That is exactly what worried members on both sides of the Committee who were concerned about quality, because clause 8 does not mention quality, regionality or originality.

If the ITC is indeed constrained to consider solely the criteria set out in clause 8, as the Minister's letter says, all the assurances that the Minister gave the Committee were without foundation. I hope that, in responding to the debate, he will at least confirm the rather weak assurances on this subject that he gave us in Committee, especially in column 68, that the ITC can take quality, regionality and originality into account, even though they are absent from clause 8, because that alone is the basis on which the Bill emerged unamended on this point from the Committee.

Mr. Sproat

I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for tabling his amendment and giving us the chance to run through these extremely important issues. We know from Question Time before consideration of the Bill, from Second Reading and from Committee how important hon. Members on both sides of the House consider this matter to be. However, I cannot commend new clause 4 to the House. It appears to the Government to be much too restrictive.

We should compare the new clause with what currently applies to the broadcasting regulators. Currently, they are required to promote fair and effective competition and to ensure that, taken as a whole, the services they license are of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.

Within that general remit, there are specific statutory arrangements, spelling out the criteria to be applied in granting particular categories of licence. These take account of the very different circumstances of different licence categories. Strict and detailed programming and scheduling content conditions apply to the holders of regional Channel 3 licences. These are clearly not intended, for example, in the case of satellite, where the constraints of spectrum scarcity are so much less and there is consumer choice and subscription access rather than free-to-air broadcasting.

It is not as though the Bill actively precludes the quality and original UK programming criteria which this amendment seeks to make paramount for every service. The general duties in the 1990 Act, which I began by mentioning, will be applied by the Bill to the new digital programme services. This is what is secured by Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13. Under the Bill as it stands, the regulators will be free to take account of quality considerations in assessing how likely a particular programme package proposed by a multiplex applicant is to appeal to viewers and listeners and thereby promote their take-up of digital receiving equipment.

Similarly, quality considerations can be taken into account in considering, as the market develops, the acceptability of any licence variations relating to programming which a multiplex operator may propose. In the Government's view, this strikes the right balance between the need to ensure that the market can prosper and the need to allow the regulators to avoid any danger of a flood of low-quality or stale programming.

Similarly, the Bill applies a statutory requirement that new digital terrestrial television services include at least 10 per cent. of original European-produced programming, and the higher figure of 25 per cent. will apply in perpetuity to the digital broadcasting by channels 1 to 5 of the services provided in digital simulcast and after analogue switch-off on the new digital services on that channel of the multiplex.

New clause 4 is not needed, and does not propose a practical means of regulating commercial broadcasters. The Government will oppose it if the Opposition seek to put it to the vote.

Perhaps I might just say that, although it has been an extremely interesting debate, different people who have spoken have used the word "quality" for different concepts. There is quality as applied to what one might call highbrow programming—I do not say that in anything other than a neutral sense—Shakespeare or high-class documentaries and so on. There is also quality in the sense that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) meant when he said that "Blind Date" is a high-quality show. I am sure that he is right—but it is a different sort of high quality. Both kinds are important, but it is also important to remember that the same word can be used in quite different senses.

The word "quality" can be used in yet another sense as well. Some people who talk about quality broadcasting mean that programming should include a certain number of hours of religious or educational broadcasting, or documentaries. Finally, quality can also be taken to mean taste, decency and impartiality—items that are taken into account in the Bill, and which were included in section 6 of the 1990 Act.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) mentioned the debates that we have had on the question of a backstop. I said that the lawyers could not make up their minds whether the backstop that I believe is in section 2 of the 1990 Act is imported to this Bill by schedule 7. Quite fairly, I told the Committee that I thought it was, but that, if not, I would bring it in: which is what I am doing. Besides taste, decency and impartiality, which are to be found in section 6, there is to be this second, albeit less important, backstop—in the form of the sort of quality that the ITC must take into account when scrutinising the whole range of services.

The same arguments apply to new clause 35, which relates to programming in Wales. It is a fact of commercial broadcasting that broadcasters need to appeal to their audiences. In Wales, that means broadcasting material of interest to those living in Wales; and HTV and S4C broadcast a wealth of material that reflects the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for helping to educate me in the value of the English language in Wales as well as the Welsh language, and I thank him for sending me the text of a talk given by Mr. Geraint Talfan Davies, which I found fascinating.

The Government regard the new clauses as unnecessary, and will vote against both.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 289.

Division No. 159] [7.12 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Adams, Mrs Irene Bell, Stuart
Ainger, Nick Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Bennett, Andrew F
Allen, Graham Benton, Joe
Alton, David Bermingham, Gerald
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Berry, Roger
Armstrong, Hilary Betts, Clive
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Ashton, Joe Blunkett, David
Austin-Walker, John Boateng, Paul
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Bradley, Keith
Barnes, Harry Bray, Dr Jeremy
Barron, Kevin Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Battle, John Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Bayley, Hugh Byers, Stephen
Caborn, Richard Hall, Mike
Callaghan, Jim Hanson, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Hardy, Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Harman, Ms Harriet
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Campbell-Savours, D N Henderson, Doug
Canavan, Dennis Heppell, John
Cann, Jamie Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) Hinchliffe, David
Chidgey, David Hodge, Margaret
Chisholm, Malcolm Hoey, Kate
Church, Judith Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Clapham, Michael Home Robertson, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields) Hood, Jimmy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Hoon, Geoffrey
Clarke, Tom (MonkSands W) Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Clelland, David Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Howells, Dr Kim
Coffey, Ann Hoyle, Doug
Cohen, Harry Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Connarty, Michael Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Corbett, Robin Hutton, John
Corbyn, Jeremy Illsley, Eric
Corston, Jean Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cousins, Jim Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Cox, Tom Jamieson, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Johnston, Sir Russell
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Cunningham, Roseanna Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dafis, Cynog Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Darling, Alistair Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Davidson, Ian Jowell, Tessa
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) Keen, Alan
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) Khabra, Piara S
Denham, John Kilfoyle, Peter
Dewar, Donald Kirkwood, Archy
Dixon, Don Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Dobson, Frank Lewis, Terry
Donohoe, Brian H Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dowd, Jim Litherland, Robert
Eagle, Ms Angela Livingstone, Ken
Eastham, Ken Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Etherington, Bill Llwyd, Elfyn
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Lynne, Ms Liz
Fatchett, Derek McAllion, John
Faulds, Andrew McCartney, Ian
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Macdonald, Calum
Flynn, Paul McFall, John
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) McKelvey, William
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Mackinlay, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath) McLeish, Henry
Fraser, John Maclennan, Robert
Fyfe, Maria McNamara, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam MacShane, Denis
Galloway, George McWilliam, John
Gapes, Mike Madden, Max
Garrett, John Maddock, Diana
George, Bruce Mahon, Alice
Gerrard, Neil Mandelson, Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Marek, Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Golding, Mrs Llin Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gordon, Mildred Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Graham, Thomas Maxton, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Meacher, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Meale, Alan
Grocott, Bruce Michael, Alun
Gunnell, John Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Hain, Peter Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Miller, Andrew Sheerman, Barry
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Moonie, Dr Lewis Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Morgan, Rhodri Short, Clare
Morley, Elliot Simpson, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe) Skinner, Dennis
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mowlam, Marjorie Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mudie, George Snape, Peter
Mullin, Chris Spearing, Nigel
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Spellar, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
O'Brien, William (Normanton) Steinberg, Gerry
O'Hara, Edward Stevenson, George
Olner, Bill Stott Roger
O'Neill, Martin Strang, Dr. Gavin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Straw, Jack
Parry, Robert Sutcliffe, Gerry
Pearson, Ian Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pendry, Tom Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pickthall, Colin Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Pike, Peter L Timms, Stephen
Pope, Greg Touhig, Don
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore) Trickett, Jon
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E) Turner, Dennis
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Tyler, Paul
Prescott, Rt Hon John Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Primarolo, Dawn Wallace, James
Purchase, Ken Walley, Joan
Quin, Ms Joyce Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Radice, Giles Wareing, Robert N
Randall, Stuart Wicks, Malcolm
Raynsford, Nick Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Rendel, David Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Robertson, George (Hamilton) Wilson, Brian
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) Winnick, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara Wise, Audrey
Rogers, Allan Worthington, Tony
Rooker, Jeff Wray, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry Wright, Dr Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Young, David (Bolton SE)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Rowlands, Ted Tellers for the Ayes:
Ruddock, Joan Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Eric Martlew.
Sedgemore, Brian
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Bowden, Sir Andrew
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan Bowis, John
Alexander, Richard Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Brandreth, Gyles
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Brazier, Julian
Amess, David Bright, Sir Graham
Arbuthnot, James Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Ashby, David Browning, Mrs Angela
Aspinwall, Jack Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert Budgen, Nicholas
Atkinson, David (Boumm'th E) Burns, Simon
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Burt, Alistair
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V) Butcher, John
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Butler, Peter
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Butterfill, John
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Bates, Michael Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Batiste, Spencer Carttiss, Michael
Bellingham, Henry Cash, William
Bendall, Vivian Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Beresford, Sir Paul Chapman, Sir Sydney
Biffen, Rt Hon John Churchill, Mr
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Clappison, James
Booth, Hartley Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Boswell, Tim Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Coe, Sebastian
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia Colvin, Michael
Congdon, David Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Cormack, Sir Patrick Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Couchman, James Hunter, Andrew
Cran, James Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Jack, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Jenkin, Bernard
Day, Stephen Jessel, Toby
Deva, Nirj Joseph Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Devlin, Tim Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Duncan, Alan Key, Robert
Duncan Smith, Iain King, Rt Hon Tom
Dunn, Bob Kirkhope, Timothy
Durant, Sir Anthony Knapman, Roger
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Elletson, Harold Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter Knox, Sir David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evennett, David Legg, Barry
Faber, David Leigh, Edward
Fabricant, Michael Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Lidington, David
Fishburn, Dudley Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Forth, Eric Lord, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Luff, Peter
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley) Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger MacGregor, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas MacKay, Andrew
Fry, Sir Peter Maclean, Rt Hon David
Gale, Roger McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gallie, Phil Madel, Sir David
Gardiner, Sir George Maitland, Lady Olga
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan Malone, Gerald
Garnier, Edward Mans, Keith
Gill, Christopher Marland, Paul
Gillan, Cheryl Marlow, Tony
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gorst, Sir John Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs) Mates, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Mellor, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) Merchant, Piers
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Mills, Iain
Hague, Rt Hon William Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Hampson, Dr Keith Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy Moss, Malcolm
Hannam, Sir John Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Haselhurst, Sir Alan Nelson, Anthony
Hawkins, Nick Neubert, Sir Michael
Hawksley, Warren Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hayes, Jerry Nicholls, Patrick
Heald, Oliver Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward Norris, Steve
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Oppenheim, Phillip
Hendry, Charles Ottaway, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Page, Richard
Hicks, Sir Robert Paice, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence Patnick, Sir Irvine
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test) Patten, Rt Hon John
Horam, John Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter Pawsey, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Sykes, John
Pickles, Eric Tapsell, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Porter, David (Waveney) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Powell, William (Corby) Temple-Morris, Peter
Rathbone, Tim Thomason, Roy
Redwood, Rt Hon John Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Richards, Rod Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Riddick, Graham Thurnham, Peter
Robathan, Andrew Townend, John (Bridlington)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Tracey, Richard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Tredinnick, David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Trend, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela Trotter, Neville
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard Twinn, Dr Ian
Sackville, Tom Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy Viggers, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover) Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Walden, George
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford) Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Waller, Gary
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Ward, John
Shersby, Sir Michael Waterson, Nigel
Sims, Sir Roger Watts, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor Wells, Bowen
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Soames, Nicholas Whitney, Ray
Spencer, Sir Derek Whittingdale, John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) Widdecombe, Ann
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Spink, Dr Robert Wilkinson, John
Sproat, Iain Willetts, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Wood, Timothy
Steen, Anthony Yeo, Tim
Stephen, Michael Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Stewart, Allan
Streeter, Gary Tellers for the Noes:
Sumberg, David Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.
Sweeney, Walter

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to