Sitting of 13 December 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
  HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Bill considered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Bypass Operations
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary bypass operations have been performed each year for the last 10 available years.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): Figures on the number of cardiac surgery operations are collected annually by the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons. According to its returns, the number of coronary artery bypass grafts carried out in the United Kingdom in 1977 was 2,881, and in 1985, the latest year for which figures are available, it was 11,800. That is a rise of 310 per cent. over the period.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. and learned Friend in a position to confirm that part of the increase has come about because money is available from the waiting-list fund? Is he aware that in one hospital in America—Houston medical centre—more than 3,000 operations are done each year by Dr. Denton Cooley who achieves greater utilisation of the operating theatres by having no trade unionists working in them?
    Mr. Mellor: We have been giving priority to coronary bypass grafts for some years, and it is because of that that the numbers have increased so much. It is correct to say—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this—that about 500 additional such operations have been made possible by the waiting-list fund.
    As for the utilisation of operating theatres, we can certainly learn from the experience of others; there is a pertinent Public Accounts Committee report on that point.
    Mrs. Mahon: Before the Minister gets carried away with self-congratulations, will he join me in congratulating Councillor Eddie Scott of Calderdale, who has taken a principled stand by not going private in spite of a waiting
    752
    list of 18 months for a bypass operation? Will the Minister give Councillor Scott and people like him some hope of relief from pain—and, in some cases, some hope of life—by increasing still further the money spent on this vital operation, which, the House realises, was nothing like as advanced in 1977 as it was in 1987?
    Mr. Mellor: I am sorry that the hon. Lady thought that I was congratulating myself. I was asked for the figures and gave them. I accept what she said in two respects. First, we need to carry out more of these procedures and are pressing regions to do that. Secondly, I am sad to say that there are districts in this country in which too many patients are made to wait more than a year for treatment. That is not acceptable, and I assure the hon. Lady that we are applying pressure especially to those districts to ensure that waiting lists are brought down. With major procedures such as this people should have to wait the shortest possible time; we shall work to that effect.
    I do not know about the particular case that the hon. Lady mentioned, but if she writes to me about it I shall be happy to consider it.

    Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (Radiation)
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made for further medical checks and treatment of patients from North Devon who received excessive radiation during 1988 from the radiography department at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital; when they may expect the first payment of any financial provision; when he expects to receive and reach a conclusion on the reports by independent specialists; what steps he has taken to ensure that treatment now being given is of the highest standard; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Edwina Currie): These are matters for the Exeter health authority. The report of the independent inquiry by Sir Bryan Thwaites and the conclusions of the medical assessments by Professor Joslin were published by the Exeter health authority on 6 December. All the recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented. I am satisfied that the care and treatment of cancer patients in the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital is being restored to the highest standards.
    Mr. Speller: Does the Minister recall saying in June that there would be no whitewash? May I congratulate her on the fact that both reports indicate no whitewash and are a complete and honest statement of the sad facts.
    Perhaps we should be thinking of insurance within health authorities. It is ludicrous that anyone should suggest that a local health authority can bear the vast costs that are certain to be incurred in this instance.
    Finally, may I ask for my hon. Friend's assurance that she and her Department approve of and are satisfied with the procedure carried out by that health authority at present.
    Mrs. Currie: First, I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks which I am sure will be appreciated by all concerned.
    Secondly, in answer to my hon. Friend's last question, as I have said, we are sure that provided that all the details

    753
    and recommendations are implemented the standards at Exeter will speedily be restored to what they should have been in the first place.
    Thirdly, with regard to insurance, it has long been Government policy—both of this Government and previous Governments—that the public authorities do not take out insurance. It certainly works out cheaper in the long run if they are self-insuring. I understand that the health authority has not yet worked out the details of offers in individual cases of compensation, but has already made payments to meet reasonable expenses of the patients concerned.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Devon health authority has been very caring since the accident in trying to look after the patients affected? Does she approve the concept that I put to her that a panel of three, preferably composed of a retired High Court judge, an expert in cancer and an expert in medical compensation, should assess the claims of those people, not to take away their legal rights, but to try and ensure that compensation is paid quickly? That would ensure that those affected are not put to exorbitant costs by solicitors who must be mindful of the fees available when dealing with protracted cases of legal compensation.
    Mrs. Currie: I am grateful for the suggestions that have been made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members about the possibility of using independent assessors. May I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the chairman of Exeter health authority on 6 December in which he said that
    "the Authority intends to deal with those claims as expeditiously as possible in a way which will cause as little distress to patients and their families as the circumstances will allow. The Authority has instructed its solicitors to reflect this desire".
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister should be sacked.
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman may not be interested in cancer patients in Exeter, but Conservative Members are.
    On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, although it does not appear that we shall need independent assessors at this time, we appreciate the constructive approach of patients' legal advisers.
    Mr. Galbraith: These are tragic events that we all have a duty to ensure do not occur again. Does the Minister agree that such cases highlight the importance of clinical physicists and others in the Health Service involved in the provision of health care? Does she also agree that, over the years, the salaries of such groups have deteriorated in comparison with those of people in comparable professions outside? Will she therefore reconsider her Department's position and once again consider including in the pay review body's consideration clinical physicists and biochemists? If she does not, I fear that the position will continue to deteriorate and we may yet have other cases such as those in Exeter.
    Mrs. Currie: We regard our hospital physicists and other hospital scientists as very important. The reports make that view plain, but they do not blame low pay for the mistakes. In our view, the mistakes were more the result of carelessness and incompetence than anything else.
    754
    An offer has been made through the Whitley councils to the physicists. They have not accepted it and discussions are continuing.

    RAWP
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on future funding of regional health authorities under the resources allocation working party.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make changes to the resource allocation working party formula.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I hope to be able to announce the 1989–90 resource allocations to regional health authorities shortly. When the National Health Service management board's report on the review of the resource allocation working party formula was published, the then Secretary of State for Social Services said that the Government would consider the report within the context of the wider review of the NHS. That remains the position.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a mockery is made of the assessment formula for regional health authorities when Brighton and Wolverhampton are placed in the same league of social deprivation? May I have his much-needed assurance that if the RAWP is genuinely to fulfil its aim of reflecting the relative needs of the population, as I know that he would wish, he will consider most carefully the method of assessment, and especially its implications for the west midlands? Under current figures the west midlands stands to lose £23 million, which would be a disaster.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me on a previous occasion. I know that she and other west midland Members are concerned. We are considering the review body's recommendation of a package of changes. It is true that the west midlands sees itself losing some of its proposed share of resources under the RAWP formula. We thought it best to examine the re-allocation of resources within the context of the review of the service, which is now taking place. We shall present our conclusions when we are able to announce the results of the review.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the concept that morbidity is a better measure of the needs for the elderly than the standard mortality rate, especially in Herefordshire where there is a much greater than average number of elderly and very elderly among the population? Is he aware that there is substantial concern that a national expenditure rate as a means of measurement does not accurately reflect the different economic health of the elderly, for example, of Eastbourne, Hereford and Sandwell? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to these matters and engage in more work on them before he accepts the review?
    Mr. Clarke: With allocations that are based on complex formulae, it is always possible to have serious argument on precisely what criteria should be used. My hon. Friend makes two valid points, especially from the point of view of the Hereford health authority, which comes within the

    755
    West Midlands regional health authority. In the past, the RAWP allocation has helped to remove some of the wide variations in allocations between different parts of the country. We must be sure that future allocations proceed on a fair basis and accurately reflect, as far as possible, varying needs across the country.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that Stoke-on-Trent hospitals are already operating a red alert, before the onset of winter? They desperately need assistance from the resource allocation working party. Any changes in the formula that help better-off areas are bound to damage Stoke-on-Trent and other poorer areas. Surely that is unacceptable.
    Mr. Clarke: Stoke-on-Trent and many other areas were historically under-provided compared with more prosperous parts of the country. Since the Government have been in office, they have done extremely well. That is because we have applied the RAWP formula to the distribution of resources. We have brought all regions much closer together financially than they were before we took office. Most of the disparities between districts have been narrowed to a large extent. We must now examine the recommendations and ensure that we arrive at the fairest system possible for the allocation of resources.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the moneys that are made available under the RAWP formula be re-examined in the light of the recent public hysteria over salmonella, and can additional resources be expended in particular areas? Bearing in mind the statement by the Secretary of State's junior Minister, is it not about time that the hon. Lady was sacked? She has frightened the British people.
    Mr. Clarke: The future of the RAWP formula is of serious concern to those who live in the Northern regional health authority areas and in areas within the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He does no service to his patients or constituents by taking the opportunity to ask a frivolous supplementary question on a serious topic.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In any review of the RAWP procedure, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the Nottingham health authority, which covers the areas which he and I represent, is still about 5 per cent. short of the RAWP target? Will he bear in mind that if it is able to make up that percentage, it will be able to do much more in furtherance of the excellent progress that has been made over the past seven years to secure an even better health service in Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that Trent will do even worse than the west midlands under the proposals that have been made by the RAWP review procedure. Reactions vary according to which part of the country people come from and the impact that the review procedure proposals will have on their region. We have done a great deal in the past, and this has helped Nottingham to open a new teaching hospital. That has been possible with the extra moneys that it has received. We must now hold the balance and arrive at the fairest method of distribution for the future. That will not he a method that reverses all that we have done over recent years to remove the old inequalities.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that it is rather a weird definition of deprivation that has the net effect of taking cash away from the north-east and
    756
    the north-west and redistributing it to the south coast and East Anglia on the ground that those areas are more deprived than Merseyside and Tyneside? Does he not also appreciate that he will bring the whole RAWP process into disrepute if that formula is now to be fixed in exactly the same way as the rate support grant formula is now rigged?
    Mr. Clarke: The Health Service management board comprised a wide range of people including the regional chairmen of regions the length and breadth of England. Its report is an attempt to revise the criteria of the original RAWP allocation to reflect objective scientific study. It proves that it is almost impossible for anyone to get it right. There are losers and gainers in the north and the south and we have to ensure that whatever method we finally arrive at is fair and broadly acceptable to the bulk of the population.

    Pay and Conditions (Appeals)
    Mr. McCrindle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time taken for an appeal concerning pay and conditions, including grading, in the National Health Service to be heard; and if he will seek to reduce the time taken.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We do not collect information centrally on the average time taken to process appeals. However, on 5 December I wrote to regional health authority chairmen asking health authorities to adopt a range of measures aimed at ensuring that the appeals process works quickly and effectively.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not becoming clear that the Royal College of Nursing was absolutely right to resist industrial action and to pursue claims through the appeals procedure? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that all health authorities are moving to hear those appeals at the same speed? Has any consideration been given to hearing a number of those appeals together to expedite a solution to the problem?
    Mr. Clarke: The Royal College of Nursing always pressed for the regrading arrangement and the new grading structure. Since we introduced it, the college has tried to help with difficulties and has discussed with me means by which we speed up the appeals process. I am sure that all the authorities will try to proceed as quickly as possible. The difficulty is that a few are flooded out by many speculative appeals which people have been encouraged to put in when there is no real basis for claims. We believe that the appeal process, properly implemented, can deal with legitimate grievances and, I hope, sort them all out by the spring of next year.
    Mr. Fearn: Can the Minister confirm that the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives and the unions have received the guidelines? When will he talk to the unions?
    Mr. Clarke: I have made it clear that I will not talk to representatives of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees while they are still trying to organise industrial action. I know that not much industrial action is still taking place, but they have not yet withdrawn their attempts to stir it up. I cannot have discussions with anyone in which I seek to substitute myself as Secretary of State for the

    757
    management side of the Whitley council. The regrading exercise was worked out through negotiations between the management side and the staff side and includes all the trade unions of the appropriate Whitley council. The money was set by the review body, that was accepted by the Government and we provided the cash to fund it. In due course I have no doubt that I will have talks on relevant matters with union leaders, but I will not re-open the Whitley council negotiations with people who are trying to cause strikes at the expense of patients.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in future, questions of pay should be dealt with on a local basis? To resolve local difficulties such as the shortage of intensive care nurses in Birmingham by imposing a national solution is clearly incorrect. The private sector will not resolve Birmingham's problems by imposing a solution suitable to Bristol or Burnley.
    Mr. Clarke: I have strong sympathy with my hon. Friend's views and his point applies to the way in which the pay and terms and conditions of a wide range of staff are settled in the National Health Service, which is too centralised and too monolithic at the moment. We have put proposals to the review body on nurses' pay for a small experimental fund next year which can be used to try to devise methods for more local discretion in settling pay to meet particular improvement needs. I wait to see what response that receives from the trade unions and I wait to hear the recommendations by the review body.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that in the case of Rotherham health authority, any successful appeals, of which there should be a great number because of the many anomalies that have been created, will inevitably result in a reduction in patient services on the present allocation of resources? Does he believe that it is proper to refuse to fund successful appeals knowing that patients will suffer? Is it not better to ensure that both staff and patients are treated fairly?
    Mr. Clarke: No, we provided full funding for the nurses' award after the grading exercise was completed and we used the health authorities' own figures to arrive at the figure for full and final funding. I have no reason to believe that Rotherham district health authority has made huge numbers of mistakes in applying the grading structure to its particular staff, although it will no doubt find individual mistakes and correct them. I am quite satisfied that the deal can be implemented without any threat to patient care.

    Health Promotion (Women)
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he is encouraging health promotion schemes for women.
    Mrs. Currie: We are very proud of the action that we have taken to promote women's health. We have implemented screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer to reduce the number of women who die each year from these diseases. The maternal death rate continues to fall. The Health Education Authority is planning to give more prominence to women's health. In June, we sponsored both a debate in this House and a
    758
    national conference, and this year we are supporting a large number of national voluntary organisations concerned with women's health.
    Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Although it is true that deaths from cervical cancer have fallen by about 14 per cent. in the past 10 years, the number of deaths is still higher than it should be. Can we hope for improvements in that figure over the next few years?
    Mrs. Currie: Yes, it is our hope that the new national call and recall system, which is implemented throughout the country, will bring about a reduction in the toll from this particular preventable cancer.
    Mr. Lofthouse: As the Minister still holds the view that most of the eggs in this country are contaminated by salmonella, why has she not included the advice not to eat eggs in her advice for women, under the health promotion scheme?
    Mrs. Currie rose—
    Hon. Members: Come on.
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman asked a question and he will get the answer. The Government's view is as follows. Although the risk of harm to any healthy individual from consuming a single raw or partially cooked egg is small, it is advisable for vulnerable people such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women to consume only eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid—in other words, hard boiled.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I ask my hon. Friend to assure the House that she is as concerned about the health of men at risk as about the health of women at risk?
    Mrs. Currie: Yes, very much so. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the main thrust of the heart disease programme—the "Look After Your Heart" campaign—is directed at middle-aged men. I was concerned that we were not doing enough for the health of women and I hope that we have put that right.

    Nurses (Grading)
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of hospitals where staff are in dispute over the 1988 pay award regarding nurses' grading.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I understand that some appeals against individual gradings have been registered in most, if not all districts. That is hardly surprising in the regrading of some half a million nursing and midwifery staff.
    Mr. Cox: That reply does not reflect the grave dissatisfaction and sense of injustice that nurses throughout the country feel over their grading in the recent pay award. Does the Secretary of State accept that if dedicated people, such as midwives and nurses working in intensive care units, take such action, that is a real expression of their sense of injustice? Does he accept that, if the matter is to be resolved, nurses must be heard and must not be subject to the abuse and attacks that he and other Ministers in his Department have heaped on them in recent weeks? When will the Secretary of State listen to what the nurses are saying and act on that?
    Mr. Clarke: It must come as a considerable disappointment to the hon. Gentleman that comparatively few nurses have taken industrial action anywhere, and that action is undoubtedly on the wane. That is not surprising when one considers that the pay increase for the profession as a whole is 17·9 per cent. and in London, the hon. Gentleman's own part of the world, there have been supplements of 5 per cent. to 9 per cent. on top of that. The nursing profession has received its biggest pay award in the history of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the lessons of the regrading exercise is that matters could be much better managed if the districts had all the necessary powers to recruit, retain and motivate staff and were not second-guessed by the regions?
    Mr. Clarke: We have a system of national pay bargaining, from which the regrading exercise emanated in the first place. The exercise started with a national agreement between six trade unions—including the two now organising strikes—and management. I am very much in favour of having much more discretion at district level. However, in a large organisation such as the Health Service, there has to be a national structure in which sensible local discretion can be set. I shall be very glad if we make progress in that direction this year, but we shall have to wait for the response of the review body to our modest suggestions.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that we are not only talking about the problem of applying the decisions at national level, and that at district level, too, there seem to be anomalies in the grading structure? Does he realise that, although there may not be much industrial action, there is deep unrest throughout the nursing services, which is spreading in particular to health visitors and school nurses?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that there are anomalies. I accept that difficulties arise when people who have all previously been paid the same rate find themselves paid at three different rates according to the grade of the post that they originally held. For midwifery sisters, that can mean the difference between an increase of £500 and an increase of £4,500 a year, and people naturally feel strongly about the grading of their posts. The regrading exercise has been conducted in line with a UK—wide agreement and we have a perfectly satisfactory appeals process to ensure that individual cases are sorted out and that nurses and midwives are put where they belong in the new structure.
    Mr. Conway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during my hospitalisation last month at the eye, ear and throat hospital in Shrewsbury, a number of members of staff commented about the grading system—one of them starting to do so as early as ten past six in the morning? Although they had genuine grievances, which, after a few days, I could understand in some detail, they continued to give the benefit of their expertise and compassion to the patients, and that is the significant factor. They were not led astray by union agitators or persuaded to demonstrate. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right not to be drawn down the path proposed by COHSE and NUPE, which would be a betrayal of the nurses, sisters and midwives who have stuck by their patients rather than deserted to the picket lines.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. For the reasons that I have just given, many nurses were inevitably disappointed by the outcome of this year's grading review, although they have all received substantial pay increases. Even so, most of the nurses who were disappointed would treat with contempt attempts to persuade them to take strike action against their patients to get themselves put on to a higher grade. That is why the action taken by COHSE and NUPE has been so unsuccessful throughout the country.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is not the Secretary of State worried by the fact that, by 28 December, 40 of the 50 midwives at north Middlesex hospital will have resigned? Does he really believe that he can provide a maternity service with those who remain? Does he not realise that the departure of those midwives and of many disillusioned nurses and midwives could be averted if he accepted the unions' offer to go to binding arbitration? If he is so confident of his case, why is he so afraid of arbitration?
    Mr. Clarke: I am pleased to hear that talks with the midwives at north Middlesex hospital have resumed. They are plainly dedicated people, and I hope that they will reconsider their present declared intention and continue to work at the hospital. Meanwhile, they are arguing that they should all be put on the higher grade, which would mean an increase of almost £2,000 a year over arid above the £2,000 a year increase that they have already received. That would simply not be consistent with the agreement reached with all the unions, including the Royal College of Midwives earlier this year. We followed the review body's recommendations and I see no reason at this stage to go to arbitration. The regrading deal was carried out in line with the agreement that we had with the unions and has been accepted by the review body. It has been finished and implemented. We should be looking to next year rather than trying to arbitrate on a settled matter.

    Oxford Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to visit the Oxford regional health authority to discuss its future plans.
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be conducting the annual review of the Oxford regional health authority on 15 February 1989 when she will discuss the region's performance in 1988–89 and its plans for next year.
    Mr. Baldry: Is it not true that the Oxford regional health authority is taking a number of new initiatives, including community-oriented mental health facilities, better health promotion and better information for the disabled throughout the region? Are not those just a few examples of the initiatives that the region is taking, not only on its own, but in conjunction with the voluntary and private sectors, and are not those, in turn, indicative of the increasing number of initiatives that regions throughout Britain are taking to promote better health care?
    Mr. Mellor: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive interest in the health services in his area, which extends, among other things, to chairing meetings about income-generation schemes which are greatly valued. The Oxford regional health authority has the largest increase in population of any region and it is extremely impressive

    761
    that it has managed to cope with that and bring forward those fresh initiatives. Among the many that my hon. Friend mentioned, all of which we commend, I particularly commend the authority's impressive record of keeping all its districts up to or over the 90 per cent. target rate for vaccinations, so much so that it is now aiming for 95 per cent.—something which other regions could usefully emulate.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is the Minister aware that earlier in the summer I raised with the Government the impending crisis in the Oxford region resulting from the chronic understaffing, high vacancy rates and high staff turnover at the regional blood transfusion centre? Is he further aware that this week in the Oxford region a circular is being distributed which warns of the partial suspension of some of the services of that critical centre? That will have a disastrous effect on the blood service and some other services such as tissue typing. Will the Minister convene an urgent meeting with me, the regional health authority and other interested Members in the region so that we can get that critical service back on the footing on which it should be for all the region's population?
    Mr. Mellor: The blood transfusion service is important in any region. Without notice, I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's precise points, but I am available to any hon. Member to discuss such important services and I shall be happy to see him.
    Mr. Page: When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visits Oxford regional health authority to discuss its future plans, will she canvass its views on the need for compulsory clinical assessment of the work of consultants within that region? The British Medical Association has been established for over 130 years and the royal colleges for centuries more and there is still no compulsory clinical judgment on consultants' work. When my hon. Friend visits Oxford will he see whether it is prepared to become a trial area to assess the work of consultants?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend refers to medical audit, in which there is growing interest in Britain. We have recently announced the expenditure of a further £250,000 on research into medical audit, the techniques of which are helpful to the development of a good Health Service. Everyone stands to gain from that, not just people in Oxford.

    Pensioners (Health)
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to add to the advice given by his Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) at Reading, to pensioners on keeping healthy during the winter months.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations from pensioners or pensioners' organisations about the advice given by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) at Reading on the subject of keeping healthy during the winter.
    Mrs. Currie: On pensioners' health day in Reading the Government drew attention to simple advice on self-help which can make a difference to winter mortality. For the second year running we have a "Keep Warm, Keep Well"
    762
    campaign, involving the five Government Departments and voluntary organisations, which is proving to be very effective. We have received around 400 letters on the topic. The telephone helpline, run by Help the Aged, is now receiving over 700 calls per week. We are very pleased with the success of the campaign.
    Mr. Darling: On reflection, does the hon. Lady consider that her remarks were ill-judged and stupid? For how much longer will she be allowed to act as court jester, deflecting attention from the fact that for many pensioners this Christmas the choice will be between heating their houses and eating? Is she aware that the best Christmas present that she could give most pensioners, and, indeed, many Conservative Members, would be a month's silence.
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the worst winter in recent years for excess winter mortality and hypothermia was 1979. If the Opposition had their way, there would be no such campaign. There was no campaign in the 1970s when winter mortality was much higher than now. The advice is plain common sense and the Opposition would do better to back it.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her advice for the elderly. Will she confirm that about 20 per cent. of body heat can be lost through the top of the head and that if one wore a hat, the heat loss would be reduced.
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend would look very fetching in a woolly hat.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the rather expensive and perhaps hard-boiled Under-Secretary restrict her more extravagant comments to cold days since the heat of the anger that she usually arouses may produce more gigajoules than a woolly hat?
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman is being niggardly in his approach to the "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign, which is proving to be popular. We printed 750,000 leaflets on the subject and already demand has been sufficient for us to order a reprint. I am pleased with the way the campaign is going.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland where we frequently have low temperatures, grandmother's remedies are often the best? Among the remedies that grandmothers in Scotland regularly suggest is that one should wear wool mittens, wool socks and wool hats. In cold weather that helps to keep the elderly warm.
    Mrs. Currie: I am glad to receive that further advice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland also has a campaign in Scotland for keeping warm in winter, and that is going very well.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that any attempts made by pensioners to assist themselves to guard against the cold must, of necessity, be cash-limited, is the Minister at least prepared to discuss the possibility of implementing a continuous cold climate allowance for the winter months?
    Mrs. Currie: That question should be referred in some detail to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. There is no doubt that elderly people and others can keep their homes warmer if they have them

    763
    insulated. One organisation supporting the campaign is Neighbourhood Energy Action, which has already insulated over 500,000 homes and would like to do more.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that she should add to the advice she gave about keeping warm in one's own home? The one thing from which pensioners have suffered most grievously—some of them are still suffering—is the inflation that ruined their savings back in Socialist days, and the best advice she could give is for them to ensure that we keep a Conservative Government.
    Mrs. Currie: Yes, that is good advice. There is no doubt that whoever we are talking about, they would be well advised to ensure that they do not get cold in winter, especially when they go out. Chills can promote heart disease and may bring on strokes, and that is what causes most of the excess winter mortality.

    Community Care
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implementation of the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received over 250 representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about Sir Roy's recommendations. We are studying all of them carefully, as we frame our own proposals.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the Secretary of State agree that the weight of opinion is with Sir Roy Griffiths in maintaining that the local authorities are best placed to assess local needs, set priorities and monitor performance? Will he make a categorical statement to that effect?
    Mr. Clarke: I have just told the House that we are still considering our own proposals. We have had a variety of responses from all the representations I have described. Everyone agrees that there is a serious problem. We have to look at how best to provide care in the community and how best to arrange responsibility for it. We have to look at all the various models put before us before we can come to a definite conclusion.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. and learned Friend will know how anxiously his decision on the Griffiths' report is awaited, not just by statutory bodies but by voluntary organisations. Can he tell the House when he hopes to reach a decision?
    Mr. Clarke: I realise that it is essential that we reach conclusions as soon as we can. It is an important matter, and I believe that few people think that the status quo is highly satisfactory. It will be some time next year—I hope, early next year—before we can reach any final conclusions,because the reactions we have received are so varied and there are a number of options before us.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The Government have dilly-dallied over the Griffiths report, which was published the day after the Budget. Is not the Secretary of State worried that the growth of uncontrolled expenditure by the taxpayer on private residential homes that Sir Roy identified has now reached the £1 billion mark? Is it fair that the chaos in community care that so worried Sir Roy should continue,
    764
    particularly in view of the Government's clear opposition to a democratic role for local government, which Sir Roy himself accepted?
    Mr. Clarke: There has been a huge increase in public expenditure of all kinds on care in the community, most of which reflects the increased priority that the Government have been giving it. I accept that we must look at the situation again, to ensure that there are clear responsibilities for delivering the care and that the right relationship exists between all the various agencies involved. We shall announce our conclusions as quickly as we can.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I visited St. George's hospital in Tooting to visit some of those injured in yesterday's train crash, and to thank the hospital staff and the emergency services. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, in the aftermath of yesterday's appalling rail crash, to record the thanks of the whole House, first, to the emergency services and secondly, to the master and boys of Emanuel school who happened to be passing when the accident occurred?
    As it is now emerging that rail passengers who have to stand appear to be most at risk, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that aspect is thoroughly considered in the Government inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's remarks, and the whole House will wish to record its congratulations and thanks to the emergency services and to the hospital staff for the excellent work that they did yesterday. I thank also those of Emanuel school who saw quickly what was happening, and who were thoughtful and swift in their reactions. They are a credit to the young people of our country.
    I take note of my hon. Friend's third point concerning standing passengers. It is our purpose that all matters relating to the accident shall be considered in the public inquiry.
    Mr. Kinnock: I join the Prime Minister in expressing my deep sorrow for the pain and grief suffered by those hurt in yesterday's accident, my sympathy for their loved ones, and my admiration for and thanks to those in various capacities who helped the injured. I am sure that the whole House will want to return to that question, which is one of deep public concern.
    I wish to raise with the Prime Minister another matter of public concern. It is now clear that by her performance in the House and in Rhodes, the right hon. Lady threw away the possibility of securing the extradition of Patrick Ryan—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take the advice offered by myself and by others, and consider proceedings

    765
    under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976, especially since the Irish Attorney-General commented in his statement today that the charges are of a most serious kind and should be investigated by a court?
    The Prime Minister: The Government utterly repudiate the assertion that Patrick Ryan would not receive a fair trial in this country. The effect of the Irish decision is that a person accused of very serious crimes will not now be brought to answer them in an English court of law. That underlines how right we were to say that the existing extradition arrangements are inadequate, and we look to the Irish Government to honour their pledge to re-examine them.
    As to the possible trial of Patrick Ryan in the Republic of Ireland, we do not absolutely exclude that, but only two of the four charges are covered by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. There would be problems over the security of witnesses, whom we could not compel to go to the Republic. If the case failed because of the absence of witnesses, we could not subsequently try Patrick Ryan in our own jurisdiction.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister can repudiate as much as she likes. She is faced with the fact that Patrick Ryan will not be extradited to Britain and it is primarily her fault. I understand that the Prime Minister is very disappointed; that feeling is shared by many others, including myself. But she is also culpable. She blew the possibility of extraditing Patrick Ryan. May I ask whether she will ensure that both she and the Attorney-General will avoid making again the errors so far committed—errors of judgment, fact and conduct?
    The Prime Minister: Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman by pointing to the facts. The Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 itself requires the Irish Attorney-General to state that he is satisfied that the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities have sufficient evidence on which to prosecute. I understand that the Irish Attorney-General agrees that that is so. He made his decision on an entirely different ground.
    In Ryan's case the extradition proceedings in Belgium were in public, and wide publicity had been given to the nature of the charges and the allegations on which they were based before extradition from Ireland was ever requested.
    May I make a third point—[Interruption.] Yes, because these points must be made. The extradition proceedings were held in public, with the allegations. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Irish Attorney-General could have backed the warrant within three days, which is the time for which his provisional warrant runs. He could have done that long before the question ever arose in the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: All that the Prime Minister has said about Belgium and the conduct of affairs there was well known a fortnight ago. Why, then, was she so poisonous about the conduct of affairs by the Irish Government?
    If the Prime Minister is quoting from the Irish Attorney-General why does she not draw attention to the fact that he also said that the matter does not end at extradition? He said:
    "The charges which have been brought against Patrick Ryan are of a most serious kind, and they should be
    766
    investigated by a court. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 provides a means whereby certain serious offences committed outside this jurisdiction may be tried here."
    that is, in Ireland.
    "Such a trial may … take place before a court of three judges … Heavy penalties are prescribed by Irish law for those offences."
    Is it not still the case that because she cannot [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the case that because the Prime Minister cannot get everything that she wants she is going to settle for nothing?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is that the Irish Attorney has refused to back our warrant on grounds that do not arise from the 1987 Act. The result is that someone accused of very serious crimes will be at liberty in the Irish Republic. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not put his weight behind trying to secure the extradition of Ryan.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend believe that a permanent postal monopoly can be justified if this vital public service is continually undermined by strikes?
    The Prime Minister: I am very pleased that some 60 per cent. of Post Office counter staff continued to work. That is very good news. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that if we continue to experience sporadic troubles the permanent monopoly of the Post Office will come under review, and, we shall have to consider a reduction in the present level of £1.
    Dr. Owen: It is obviously a quite unacceptable insult to the people of this country to say that Patrick Ryan would not receive a fair trial in Britain. That belief should be conveyed to the Irish Government as coming from everyone—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a very serious matter.
    Dr. Owen: Furthermore, is it not bound to mean that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is now questioned by everyone in Britain? Will that also be conveyed to the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic?
    The Prime Minister: I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us in repudiating utterly the assertion that Patrick Ryan would not receive a fair trial in this country. Of course he would, but the arrest of anyone on charges of that nature inevitably will receive front-page treatment. It would be a matter for the courts if there were any prejudice to the trial which inevitably would be heard very far from the time that we had the problem. We must use the Anglo-Irish Agreement to make our point vigorously to the Irish Government on this matter. At the time, the Irish Government promised to review their 1987 extradition Act if it was not working satisfactorily. It is not working satisfactorily, so we shall call in that promise for them to honour.
    Mr. Gow: Have we not conferred upon the Government of the Irish Republic, by treaty, a place of special privilege in relation to Northern Ireland? Since Northern Ireland has suffered more grievously than any other part of the United Kingdom at the hands of terrorists, is it not a signal irony that the Irish Government are presently the harbourer of a suspected terrorist?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very cogently. Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement we can tackle the Republic of Ireland about matters of security just as much as they can tackle us. The difficulty is that the Republic of Ireland unilaterally passed a different extradition Act, when we already thought that arrangements had been agreed between us. That Act is not working properly, and the decision taken under that Act, not for any reasons within it, has caused the present trouble.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Prime Minister remember her elegant words in 1964 at the Conservative party conference when she said:
    "Any country or Government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermines its own law."?
    Does she agree that if the Irish Government tried to bypass their extradition laws, which exist to protect the rights of their nationals, they would be undermining their own law? When do her Government intend to sign the European convention on the suppression of terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: The Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers gives two grounds for refusing extradition. Those are not the grounds which the Irish Attorney-General has used. He has used nothing related to those grounds. He has chosen something totally different, which is a great insult to all British people. We must make that very clear, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the Act and agree with us.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware how widespread devastation in the egg industry has become? The Sunday papers tell us that 10,000 people will become redundant before Christmas and millions of egg-laying hens will be slaughtered prematurely. All this has occurred because of the ill-considered and negligent remarks of one of her junior Ministers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one more redundancy should be added to that list, that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)?
    The Prime Minister: So far this year 49 cases of salmonella affecting just over 1,000 people have been traced to eggs. That is why the Government have taken steps in conjunction with the industry to issue codes of practice. Those figures demonstrate that there is a problem.
    The Chief Medical Officer has issued guidance, most recently on 5 December, stating that the risk to normally healthy people from eating cooked eggs was very small, although they should avoid eating food with raw egg in it. For vulnerable groups, such as babies, the elderly and pregnant women, eggs should be cooked until the white and yolk are hard. [Interruption.] It is our duty to give advice. That is what the Chief Medical Officer has said and it is my duty to repeat it. We shall continue to reassure—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters of grave concern not only to the House but to those outside it.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Reid: The Prime Minister started her Question Time by congratulating hospital staff. Is she aware that many nursing staff in Lanarkshire and throughout the country have been denied fair grading because they have been deemed to be working under supervision, even when the supposed supervisor is off duty, asleep and at home? Does the right hon. Lady agree that there can be no adequate supervision when people are miles apart and completely out of touch with each other? Does not her relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer prove that very point?
    The Prime Minister: The grading structure was agreed between the management side and the nursing staff and went before the review body. The review body added an amount necessary to implement that structure. That was not sufficient, so my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided an extra amount. Together. the sums came to nearly £1 billion. The structure and the money have to be applied through the regions and the districts. There is no way in which Government can undertake the regrading of 500,000 nurses. The overwhelming majority of nurses are more than satisfied with the extra that they have received, which is considerable—an average of 18 per cent., and the highest amount that they have ever had.

Patrick Ryan
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Government whether today or, at the latest, tomorrow, they will make a statement to the House about the Ryan affair and the statement of the Irish Attorney-General?
Mr. Speaker: This news was not received until after 1 o'clock today. Whether statements are made about it is a matter for the Government.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the allocation of my public expenditure provision in the next three years. An annotated table showing the allocations for each service is available in the Vote Office and I am arranging for it to be published in the Official Report.
The continued success of the Government's management of the economy has allowed public expenditure to increase at the same time as its proportionate claim on national resources has fallen. As a result, planned provision for my Scottish programmes in 1989–90 will amount to almost £9 billion, 6 per cent. over planned expenditure for the current year.
We have already announced our proposals to integrate training and enterprise development functions in Scottish Enterprise. Detailed provision for Scottish Enterprise will appear in my future public expenditure plans. In the meantime, I have increased next year's provision for both net and gross expenditure on the industry programme, compared with the plans announced last year as well as with the actual level of this year's spending. Within the total, the Scottish Development Agency will have an enhanced budget of over £150 million. There will also be substantial budget increases over the current year of £2·5 million for the Highlands and Islands Development Board and £1 million for the Scottish tourist board. The HIDB will expand its advance factory programme to provide premises for small businesses.
I have been very impressed by the effectiveness of small factory units and industrial workshops in encouraging the promotion of small-scale economic development and employment. There is a strong demand for this type of industrial unit and considerable evidence that the supply of units is not keeping pace.
I am very glad, therefore, that in 1989–90 the SDA plans to provide 180 such units at a cost of about £6·5 million, and I am glad to announce that I am allocating an extra £5 million to local authorities to allow for an increase in the building of small factory units and industrial workshops. This represents a 31 per cent. increase in planned provision, and would allow local authorities to construct about another 140 units. This increased allocation, taken with the commitment of the resources to this purpose by the SDA, the HIDB and the new towns, will go a long way to easing the constraints on further expansion in this area.
I have once again identified the health programme as a priority area. Planned expenditure in 1989–90 will be £2,683 million, which is £182 million or 7·3 per cent. greater than in 1988–89. The Health Service will also benefit from savings in superannuation contributions and from further efficiency savings. Following a report from the Government Actuary, a copy of which I am making available in the Library, NHS employers' superannuation contributions will be reduced by 2 per cent. to 5·5 per cent., and this will produce savings of about £24 million per year. Together they produce a further £60 million for patient services. This means that, in total, additional resources of

771
about £240 million, an increase of nearly 10 per cent., will be available to the NHS in 1989–90 compared to the current year.
These additional resources will allow me, first, to fund a further major initiative to reduce waiting lists. I propose to make available at least £4·5 million for this purpose—an increase of 50 per cent. over the current year—which I estimate will, in broad terms, allow an additional 10,000 in-patients, 5,000 day patients and 40,000 out-patients to be treated. Moreover, I stand ready to allocate a further £2·5 million on top of that sum, making a total of £7 million in all, if health boards come forward with enough good quality projects specifically directed to the reduction of waiting lists. The boost in NHS resources will also allow a 25 per cent. increase in capital expenditure, and increased expenditure on medical developments, on services for the elderly, the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and on the treatment of patients with AIDS. My decisions for 1989–90 will bring the increase in resources for the Health Service in real terms since 1979 to 34 per cent.
Next year will see the start of Scottish Homes. I am determined that the new body should make a major contribution to Scottish housing from its first day. It will have gross planned expenditure, including loan repayments, of £349 million in 1989–90. This is an increase of £86 million over the comparable planned expenditure of the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Housing Corporation in the current year. Scottish Homes will in particular be able to play a major role in the regeneration work of the urban partnership in the four priority peripheral estates. Next year also, gross local authority provision for investment in housing is planned to increase by 12 per cent. This gives the lie to any claim that local authority provision has been cut to provide resources for Scottish Homes.
I have made substantial extra provision for roads and transport—14 per cent. more than for this year and £40 million more than the previous plans for 1989–90. Planned expenditure increases to £750 million in 1991–92. This will allow a good start to be made on upgrading the A74 to a motorway, as we promised in our manifesto. This is a major project which involves substantial planning in order to create a road of motorway standard. Planning work is going ahead as fast as possible and advance works may start before the end of 1990. Other roads will continue to be improved.
Programmes protecting the environment will be significantly increased in 1989–90. I have made a 14 per cent. increase in capital investment in the water services next year. That will enable local authorities to make more rapid progress in meeting higher quality standards for water supplies; to improve further the quality of our rivers and coastal waters; and to improve the condition of some bathing waters. Additional funds have been allocated to increase archaeological survey and excavation in areas of rapidly changing land use.
Provision for education in 1989–90 will be increased to £2·354 million, or 7·6 per cent. more than the equivalent figure for this year. The major part is for local authority current expenditure, which goes up by 7 per cent. to £1,793 million. Provision for local authority capital is increased by 9·4 per cent. Also, this increase, among other things, will enable me to support our educational initiatives by appropriate training, to expand the number of assisted places in schools, to respond positively to interest in setting
772
up Scottish technology academies, and to enable centrally funded colleges to improve both their equipment and the infrastructure of their educational provision.
The growing demands on the social work services are also fully recognised in this settlement. Increased provision of 13 per cent. will put local authorities in a very strong position to respond to the demographic and other pressures in this area. In addition, through direct funding of community service orders, which I am to introduce for the first time next year, I am planning for a further 600 orders in each of the next three years to make this alternative to custody more widely available to the courts.
Resources are being provided to increase staff numbers and to enhance training in the prison service. As part of our fight against drug-related crime, a third wing of the Scottish crime squad is being set up. I have also decided to invest additional resources in the court building programme to allow the new Edinburgh sheriff court to proceed and to overcome the inefficiencies of court business taking place in six different locations in the city.
Many positive benefits will accrue to Scotland as a direct consequence of the new allocations that I am announcing today. In many of the initiatives which we have launched in recent years, we have asked both the private sector and the public sector in Scotland to collaborate to the best advantage of the Scottish people. The allocations I have announced today, to Scottish Homes, to the SDA, to the National Health Service in Scotland and elsewhere are in the context of public expenditure actually falling as a proportion of national resources. It is therefore as a consequence of the contribution that the private sector is making to the wealth of the country that we can afford to enjoy these improvements in the public services.
Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State normally accuses me of having a mean, ungracious and Presbyterian approach to his attempts to represent himself as a reincarnation of Lady Bountiful, deploying favours to the people of Scotland. He will be glad to know that, on this occasion, 1 welcome some aspects of the statement, but, first, I shall make a preliminary point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed that the planned provision for 1989–90 is £8·97 million, as announced in the Autumn Statement. If we compare that with the estimated outturn for 1988–89, it represents a cut in real terms of £200 million. If hon. Members are interested, they will find that helpfully set out in table 1·10 of the Autumn Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will argue that plans for next year will not hold, but the Chancellor's figures make it clear that the Government's intentions are anything but generous.
I make it clear that Opposition Members welcome any increased expenditure for the Health Service, but I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not all above board. Will he accept that there will be some understandable cynicism about an increase that includes a reduction in employers' contributions to the superannuation fund and savings that will allegedly take place arising from the privatisation exercise that is being conducted? Will he confirm that any benefit in cash from the sacrifices of staff, who have had to apply for their own jobs at

773
considerably inferior terms and conditions, are now being captured by the Secretary of State and paraded as an increase in public spending?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about an increase of £240 million over planned expenditure in 1988–89. However, will he confirm that, if that is to be a fair comparison, he should include the £105 million which the Health Service pay settlement—and the nurses' pay settlement in particular—cost in Scotland in 1988–89? Will he accept that, on looking at the increase that he has announced, it is only prudent to take account of inflation and the additional 3·5 per cent. that the National Association of Health Authorities calculates must be included for demographic factors and other additional aims and perfectly fair objectives as outlined in the SHAPE and SHARPEN reports? If all such factors are taken into account, I suspect that, in real terms, Health Service expenditure is standing still and little better.
I strongly welcome, however, the £4·5 million for reducing waiting lists. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Rearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has been hammering away at that theme for a considerable time and I am extremely glad that, on this occasion at least, there has been some reaction. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will continue to listen.
I vehemently hope that there will be sufficient room in the new budgets to ensure that health boards can settle the outstanding disputes on the regrading process in the generous spirit that was, clearly, originally intended.
In other areas there is much less pleasant news. Expenditure on education goes up modestly in real terms next year, but then falls in real terms in the following two years. I do not understand how the Secretary of State can take the extremely optimistic line that he has adopted on industry. He knows that, in 1989–90, there will be a cash increase of £10 million, but, if the GDP deflator is applied, does he confirm that that means a decrease of £4 million? If one does the same sum for the following year, there will be a decrease of £9·5 million and in 1991–92 there will be a decrease of £17 million.
On housing it is the old story. We are told that there will be a lot more cash available, but, of course, the Government's contribution will fall in every conceivable way. What the Secretary of State has done is assume higher and higher receipts from sales and from the disposal of property. Next year, in cash terms, the Government's contribution, the net figure in the table attached to the statement, will be cut by £40 million and, in real terms, by £69 million. In the following two years of the three-year period dealt with, that reduction is followed by drops of £50 million and £32 million in real terms. If the Secretary of State is honest when he says that he wants to mount an attack on the housing problems of the nation, it is obvious that he should rethink the strategy and his contribution to the effort.
This statement is nothing like as generous as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has represented. It is full of throwaway lines that are scattered through the statement, which hardly bear examination. I was interested in the image of the Scottish crime squad with a third wing. That is a curious anatomical happening and one is moved to ask whether it will fly.
774
More seriously, of course we are pleased that, for example, there will be a 14 per cent. increase in the capital spending on the water services. That is balanced by the fact that, if one considers the other environmental services, there is a total cut in real terms between this year and next of £21 million.
In view of the coming debate on electricity privatisation, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman note that, by 1990–91, the loss of revenue from debt repayments and so on from the electricity industry will be in the region of £200 million according to the Secretary of State's figures. If the spending projections are adjusted to take account of that, the Scottish Office net . budget in 1991–92, in real terms, will be below the figure for 1988–89 by some £263 million.
I suggest Mr. Speaker, if not to you, at least to the House, that when dealing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the term generous often has a special and rather sinister meaning.
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is disposed to describe my statement as nothing like as generous as I am suggesting, I think that that is his coded way of saying that he has concluded that it is pretty generous.
. I will respond to the points that he raised. First, he made his usual response by seeking to compare planned provision for next year with the outturn this year. He is perfectly entitled to make that comparison as long as he appreciates that, in the past 50 years, there has never been a year when outturn and planned provision have been the same. Therefore, if outturn has been greater than planned provision in the past—unless the world has changed by an even greater extent that he and I believe likely—it is certain that outturn next year will turn out to be different from the planned provision.
The proper comparison to make is between planned provision today with what we were planning a year ago. I do not believe that he disputes the interpretation and conclusion that we have reached.
With regard to the Health Service, the hon. Gentleman made some reference to the fact that some of the improvements in the Health Service expenditure were being funded by efficiency savings and by reductions in NHS employer contributions. Let me make it clear that the improvements in no way affect the pension entitlements[Interruption.] I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman said that, but, for the purposes of the public who may think that such a—[Interruption.] I am delighted that the Opposition were thinking no such thought and that no one wished to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, I put on record the fact that the reduction in employers' superannuation contributions has no implications for the pension entitlements of their former employees. This means that an extra £24 million will be available for worthwhile improvements in the Health Service.
As for the reduction in the waiting list, I can understand the hon. Gentleman wanting to give a bit of shadow glory to his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but I must inform him that the Government's interest in and determination to deal with the waiting list long preceded the hon. Gentleman's elevation to his current post. In the past two years the Government have given priority to this area: in 1987, £3·6 million was allocated for a crash programme of action, and in the current year a further £3 million was set aside

775
to fund projects for this purpose. As a consequence, there have already been welcome reductions in the waiting lists, which were inflated in the past as a result of industrial action which the Opposition continually failed to condemn.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned housing, and correctly pointed out that one of the reasons why we can make such a generous provision for it in Scotland has been the enormous response by the Scottish public to the opportunities to acquire the ownership of the homes in which they live. We are constantly having substantially to revise upwards the receipts that will be available to local authorities and others as a result of the policy that has been applied. As we said all along, the benefits from the right to buy would accrue not only to people who exercised that right but to local authorities, the SSHA and others in the form of resources for their housing stock. I am happy that that is what is happening now.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the overall strategy for public expenditure.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I want to ask a detailed point about the roads programme. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the A74, but does he agree that parliamentary answers elicited by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) have clearly shown that the A77 is Scotland's most dangerous road? I hope that the programme for that is not jeopardised in any way.
More generally, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscaden (Mr. Dewar) listed his welcomes for the statement, some of us became positively alarmed? I hope my right hon. and learned Friend can reassure the House that this is a prudent increase in public expenditure standing in marked contrast to the record of the last Labour Government. Such was their inefficiency in running the economy that they reduced public expenditure in Scotland in real terms by 4£5 per cent. in their last three years in office.
Mr. Rifkind: The Government have stated throughout the United Kingdom that our objective is that public expenditure should represent a falling proportion of national resources; but because of the healthy state of the economy and the contribution of the private sector to its regeneration, in Scotland, as in England and Wales, it is possible to provide more for the Health Service and other public services.
As for the A77, I acknowledge that there are requirements for many roads other than the A74. My hon. Friend will have noticed that he fought the last general election on a manifesto that recognised the overriding priority of upgrading the A74 to motorway standard. I have today announced an increase of 14 per cent. in the roads programme for next year, a good proportion of which will be available for other road projects that may be necessary.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State agree that these welcome increases, where appropriate, from central Government will by no means overcome many of the real and legitimate problems being encountered nearer the local and community level by local authorities, and by health boards in particular? In that context, will he give an undertaking—or at least a sign—that if the outcome of the outstanding appeals to do
776
with nurses' regrading requires further adjustment of the health figures, he will give an open-minded response to health boards?
As regards housing expenditure for local authorities, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the reductions in housing benefit have left many local authorities throughout Scotland—I quote Inverness as a local example—having to increase rents and put their repairs budget on an emergency or standstill basis because of the inadequate income they are now receiving? Will he also be sympathetic to that problem?
Finally—this is a matter close to my heart—will the Secretary of State at least indicate that, in his roads expenditure totals, he is not closing his mind to the much-needed bridge to Skye?
Mr. Rifkind: So far as the latter point is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been discussions with the Highland regional council and various ideas are being discussed as to how such a bridge, if it were appropriate, might be financed. We may see progress on those matters.
With regard to the health aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question, for the reasons that I have mentioned relating to both the efficiency savings and the savings from NHS superannuation contributions, the Health Service in Scotland has an increase of resources available for expenditure of almost 10 per cent. It should therefore be possible for any minor adjustments as a result of appeals to be absorbed within the existing provision, which itself represents a generous increase.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the increases that he has announced today in those special programmes—the Scottish Development Agency, the roads programme, the housing programme and, more importantly, the Health Service—will be very welcome? They are welcome because we recognise that they result from the growth in the economy which the Government have handled effectively and well. Who would have believed us in 1979 if we had said to the public of Scotland that there would be a 34 per cent. increase, over and above the rate of inflation, in Health Service expenditure in Scotland? That is what we have achieved and we should be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that in any country the improvement of provision in the public services, such as health, housing and education, can be achieved only if the private, wealth-creating sector of the economy is successful. That lesson has now been learnt in the Kremlin, but has still to be learnt in Labour party central office.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State must know that we cannot run the National Health Service in fits and starts. If he is to have these bursts of enthusiasm and give more money to tackle waiting lists, because he genuinely wants to tackle the problem, he must realise that, when he last gave money for that purpose, many health authorities were constrained by the fact that they did not have the proper back-up facilities to take advantage of those additional funds. We do not want bursts of enthusiasm; we want sustained, necessary

777
expenditure in the health services to allow them to build up teams around the surgical teams that he claims to want to help.
Will he also answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) relating to the fact that part of the money comes from the salary cuts that are being borne by those Health Service employees who are now the employees of private companies?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his remarks, but there have been sustained increases in expenditure. The problem with regard to waiting lists is that there have been occasional explosions in their size because of industrial action. But for the industrial action that has taken place over the years, waiting lists in Scotland would be far less than they are at present. Occasionally, therefore, it is necessary for us to try and deal with those unexpected bursts through initiatives of the kind that the Government have promoted.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Health Service does not exist for its employees. Its employees are entitled to proper remuneration and should provide those services that they are contracted to provide. However, the House should agree that efficiencies can be achieved in the Health Service and in other areas of expenditure. If, by so doing, we can provide an improved quality of service for patients, that must be desirable and in the interests of the NHS.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that Opposition Members do not like comparing his previous plans with his present plans because he has the statistical habit of setting his plans low? That is the only way in which he can announce any increases. If we compare the net outrun for the year with the right hon. and learned G Gentleman's plans, we find that there are reductions in Scottish public expenditure. There is a reduction of £80 million if a comparison is made with the revised outrun, or one of several hundred million if a comparison is made with the Autumn Statement outrun. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us where he expects the cuts will fall?
Did the Secretary of State notice an article in Scotland on Sunday—it was written by his erstwhile colleague Michael Ancram—that complained about those who talk about Scottish expenditure without reference to
"the exploitation of Scottish-based assets"?
Does he look forward to the day when we can talk about Scottish spending with reference to Scottish revenue and Scottish assets, and not his statistical juggling?
Mr. Rifkind: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman made the most urgent exit from a banking career that he was able to find. If his understanding of economics is explained in his remarks this afternoon, the longer he stays away from banking, the better for the Scottish banking industry.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: There speaks the jailed lawyer.
Mr. Rifkind: I can only say—
Mr. Canavan: I would not want the Secretary of State to defend me in the courts.
Mr. Rifkind: If I defended the hon. Gentleman, I might not mind too much what the verdict was.
I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the announcements that I have made today represent to any but the most twisted mind a generous increase in public expenditure in Scotland.
Mr. David Lambie: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I welcome the extra expenditure on the roads programme and on water and sewerage services. The Secretary of State will be aware that most of the priorities for spending the extra cash will be determined by local authorities, including regional councils. Will he give a guarantee that he, along with the other Ministers in his Department, will ensure that Strathclyde regional council, over which my constituents and I have little control, determines priorities for extra expenditure on roads so as to include the provision of a motorway system from north Ayrshire to the main motorway system and the upgrading of the A737, along with the extra provisions for water and sewerage departments, so that the people of Cunninghame have a pure water supply for the first time since 1975? Let us clear up the pollution on the beaches of Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston and Irvine.
Mr. Rifkind: I never cease to be amazed. The hon. Gentleman has built a career under successive Labour and Conservative Governments on accusing those Governments of interfering with the rights of local authorities. He has now made an impassioned plea to me to insist that the Strathclyde regional council ceases to use it discretion and instead uses his or mine when expending its resources. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's views.
Mr. Andy Stewart: May I offer my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on his announcements today about Scotland, which will make my constituents green with envy? Does he agree that the best way to continue funding extra resources is for the entire United Kingdom to work together as one, bearing in mind that eight out of every 10 taxpayers live in England?
Mr. Rifkind: If my hon. Friend examines the resources that are being made available for his constituents in Sherwood and the announcements that have been made by my right hon. Friends in other Departments, he will find that improvements in the Health Service, housing provision, education provision and other areas of expenditure are to be found throughout the United Kingdom. They are explained by the increased wealth of the private sector. I am happy to say that the private sector in England has made a contribution to the improvement in national wealth.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I hope that the Scottish Development Association will carry out the Secretary of State's wishes and do something about unemployment. I was informed only last night that an unemployed family in my constituency had to have a sheriff's warrant sale. This took place only 14 days before Christmas. That is what people in the cities and throughout Scotland are having to tolerate. I hope that the SDA will do something to get unemployment sorted out.

779
I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House talk about roads. There are so many roads in my constituency that many of them could be put in the rest of Scotland and Springburn would still have plenty left. There are people who are living on islands, as it were, who are trapped by motorways, dual carriageways and bypasses. If the Secretary of State is serious about the environment, he should examine inner-city road building plans.
Mr. Rifkind: I have enormous sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I believe strongly that if we are to try to encourage a better quality of life in the urban environment, we must realise, especially the planners, that towns and cities are built for those who live in them and not for the vehicles that they occasionally use. It is unfortunate that in the planning of some new towns, and of some of the projects for urban regeneration, assumptions have been made on the car usage of those who will live in these areas, when a significant proportion of them do not have access to their own vehicles. The quality of their life would be greatly enhanced by their ability to walk to wherever they need to go without risk to life through traffic or the dehumanising effect of major road networks in town centres. Sometimes this cannot be avoided, but when it can it should be.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on his remark about the Health Service not being made for its employees? There is much merit in that remark, but NHS employees cannot exist on a diet of praise whenever there is an emergency, such as the recent rail crash. It is all very well to praise public servants, but they cannot exist on such a diet. They must be properly remunerated. They should not have to buy their jobs, as they are doing in Fife, by accepting inferior standards of employment and reneging on long-won trade union agreements. That is not what we would expect from respectable public employees. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman meet the Dunfermline district council, with me, to discuss urban renewal within Dunfermline? These matters do not come within the orbit of the four cities that he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Rifkind: I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman on his proposals for Dunfermline.
I accept that Health Service employees are entitled to proper remuneration for the work that they do. They will be aware that significant increases in pay have been given to a high proportion of those who work in the NHS. For example, nurses have a standard of living that is infinitely higher than anything that they have obtained previously.
As for competitive tendering, it does not necessarily follow that the levels of expenditure for the provision of certain ancillary services that have prevailed in the past have been the best use of public resources. It is for health boards to decide whether the quality of service that is required for health services in their area can be better achieved in another way. We have required them to go out to competitive tender. The fact that many health boards have decided at the end of the day to opt for in-house contract while some have gone for the private sector illustrates that they are left with the discretion to reach their own considered conclusion on these matters.
Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how much the
780
Exchequer would save if public expenditure per head in Scotland was reduced first to the level of that in the north of England and, secondly, to that in England as a whole?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that we have reliable figures on the level of public expenditure per head in the north of England. It might be interesting to ascertain the figures. My hon. Friend is entitled to say that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have higher levels of public expenditure than the English average, and have had them for many years. Whether that applies with equal force to each part of England is another matter. There may be variations within England, given the overall size of the population in that part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the upgrading of the A74. I hope that the work will be carried out as soon as possible. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made any additional moneys available to Strathclyde regional council to enable it to make additional payments under section 20 to ScotRail to enable it to carry out necessary improvements to rail services within Strathclyde?
Mr. Rifkind: As far as I am aware, we have not yet determined individual allocations to specific local authorities. I have announced today the global resources that are available. We shall be considering the respectwe priorities of individual authorities over the next few weeks.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Perhaps the Secretary of State will begin his afternoon's work by telling that twit on the Conservative Back Benches, the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), that public expenditure is higher per head in Scotland because there is higher unemployment and more poverty—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that "twit" is a very elegant word to use in the Chamber.
Mrs. Fyfe: If it is ruled that it is an unparliamentary expression, I will call the hon. Member for Bridlington an ill-informed gentleman, if that is better.
In connection with the resources that the Secretary of State referred to in his statement, will he spend a small sum to buy the Minister responsible for education and health a copy of the EEC "Childcare Network" report which the Minister admitted that he had not heard of at the last Scottish Question Time? I assume that the Minister has not found the time or taken the trouble to read that report, as he has failed to make any response to it.
I will remind the Secretary of State about the contents of the report. All member states of the EEC have formed a network of childcare experts which published its report a few months ago. The report found that British childcare levels were the worst in Europe and that the level of childcare support in Scotland was worse than in the rest of Britain. What resources will the Secretary of State provide to solve that problem? Is it not a disgrace that he has not referred to a penny of support for care for the under-fives in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already indicated the level of increases available for education and other matters involving the care of children. The hon. Lady might like to reflect on that. With regard to the earlier part of her question, unemployment in Scotland is considerably lower than unemployment in the north of England, but as yet we

781
have no reason to believe that public expenditure in the north of England is any higher than in Scotland. Indeed, it may be less. The hon. Lady would be ill-advised to take that comparison too far.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the answer in yesterday's Hansard which shows that net disposable income in Scotland, after taking account of housing costs, is higher than in the north of England, the midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland? As public expenditure is also higher in Scotland, is it not the case that the taxpayers of England and Wales are making a net contribution to Scottish expenditure?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to state that the net disposable income of those in employment is higher in Scotland than in most of the rest of the country outside the south-east. In the United Kingdom we do not think in terms of English, Scottish or Welsh taxpayers; we think of United Kingdom taxpayers and decisions of the United Kingdom Government on how the resources should be used. Some hon. Members prefer to consider this on a sectional or separatist basis, but they represent an insignificant minority.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is rather pitiful to see him joining his English Back Bench colleagues in the comparison between English and Scottish expenditure per head of population? Is the Secretary of State aware that in relation to health, only Finland has a higher number of deaths from cardiac failure per head of population than Scotland? Is he aware that no other country has a higher number of deaths from respiratory illnesses per head of population than Scotland? Is he also aware that our infant and perinatal mortality rates are third from the top of a rather dubious league? The reason that we get the money for the Health Service is that we have the problems.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct and I am bound to add that if in 1988 that is true, notwithstanding a 34 per cent. increase in real terms since the Government came to office, one must ask what priority was given to those issues by the Labour Government of which he was a Minister responsible for health in the Scottish Office.
Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) that since the Government came to power they have had the advantage of £62 billion of North sea oil revenues, much of which has come from Scotland not just for geographical reasons, but because of the efforts of Scottish enterprise and Scottish working-class people many of whom have given their lives? The result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer down here has been able to impose a morality throughout the United Kingdom which is like Sherwood forest in reverse; the Government are robbing the poor to pay the rich by dishing out tax concessions to the rich friends of the Tory party instead of giving money to the National Health Service in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to enable a fair implementation of the nurses' grading review.
Mr. Rifkind: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is light years out of touch with the real world. If today I have been able
782
to announce a massive increase in resources for the Health Service in Scotland, which is comparable to that throughout the United Kingdom, and if that has come about because of the increased prosperity of the private sector in the United Kingdom economy, the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that without a thrusting, thriving and successful private sector, it is impossible to improve the quality of public services. He must remember that, because he was most critical of the Labour Government's inability to fund the public services. The main reason for that was because of the poor condition of the British economy at the time.
Mr. Tony Favell: It is unfortunate that comparisons have been made in public expenditure between various parts of the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, thanks to the Labour party, Scotland is getting the reputation of having a handout mentality? Scotland's great contribution to the United Kingdom and the world was on the back of individual contributions to commerce, industry, insurance, the law and banking, not through public expenditure.
Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that we need a healthy balance between the major contribution that Scottish enterprise in its wider sense and the private sector as a whole can continue to make to the regeneration of the economy. We have always emphasised that in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it is through the regeneration of the private sector that we can afford the major resources available for improvements in the Health Service and elsewhere. That is not a Scottish phenomenon; it is common to the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that there is a continuing change in the attitude of people in Scotland to the role that the private sector can play. Given the nature of Scottish history, as my hon. Friend said, it would be surprising if that was not the case.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the allocation of funds for the SDA, I sincerely hope that Inverclyde will be treated with some sympathy—aye, and perhaps a splash of generosity. May I remind the Secretary of State that east Greenock has the highest level of unemployment in the Strathclyde regional council area? May I also point out that the Inverclyde initiative has done little or nothing to dent that scandalously high level of unemployment? No employer of any size has come to the lower Clyde since the initiative was set up. Will the Secretary of State give me an honest answer to this question: when are we to see a decent improvement in the economy of the lower Clyde?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that each of the initiatives suggested by those who live in Inverclyde has been responded to positively by the Scottish Office and the Government. In particular, the establishment of the Inverclyde enterprise zone has already led to a significant number of inquiries from people contemplating investment in Inverclyde and the consequential employment that would flow as a result.
Obviously the benefits will not come overnight. We are completing the designation of the enterprise zone and the SDA has acquired some of the land that Scott Lithgow no longer requires to adapt it as suitable for investment. As the hon. Gentleman would be the best qualified to inform the House, one of the curious and rather difficult factors

783
about Inverclyde is that, although, as he rightly says, it has high unemployment, because of its topography it has very few sites available for a major inward investor without work being carried out by the SDA and others to improve potential sites to make them suitable for investment. Problems must be overcome, but if the hon. Gentleman considers the matter he will agree that an enormous amount is going on on the ground to solve the problems.
Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State referred in his statement to the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped, did he not regret that he has not yet found the limited resources to introduce the section of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1986 which would have introduced joint planning in Scotland? Is that not a pity because, apart from the fact that virtually every voluntary organisation in those areas that I know of supports the proposal, the introduction of that section of the Act would simply take Scotland to the level of participation which has rightly been enjoyed by England and Wales for more than a decade?
Mr. Rifkind: We have made significant progress in that area and the voluntary arrangements currently available are leading to real improvements. Obviously I will carefully consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement today should be particularly welcomed by all who believe in high and rising levels of public expenditure? Does that not also demonstrate the value to Scotland of the Union with England? Is it not therefore surprising that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should be so churlish in his response this afternoon? Without the union with England, the Labour party would be even more embattled and unelectable than it is.
Mr. Rifkind: I have to say that I do not think that the hon. Member for Garscadden was churlish. By his standards, he gave an almost effusive welcome.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement is hypocritical as far as nursery education is concerned? That is one item on which the Government say that they are spending 26 per cent. more. Can the Secretary of State tell me why it is that, although, in 1977, 29,000 children received nursery education and now in 1988, 38,000 children receive nursery education, the Government are spending £300,000 less on Scottish nursery education and £3 million less than in 1977 in Strathclyde region?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's comments on local authority expenditure may say something about the priorities of the local authority in question. Strathclyde regional council is probably responsible for more resources than any other local authority in Scotland or, probably, in the United Kingdom as a whole. If it does not attach the importance to nursery education that the hon. Gentleman wishes, he should address his comments there.
Mr. John McAllion: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he has included in the allocations this afternoon a sum to cover the cost of the latest scheme promulgated by the Scottish National party on Tayside regional council? It recommends that people who pay poll tax in full and early should be given a 5 per cent. discount.
784
When it was pointed out to the nationalists on Tayside by an official that the costs of their scheme for helping the better off would have to be borne by the poor, the nationalists responded by saying that they were a party that represents the rich as well as the poor. I know that the Secretary of State does not share their point of view and I ask him, if money is made available, to ensure that their madcap scheme never comes into being.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must understand that he has put me in a very difficult position. I have to say that it does not surprise me that the nationalist party should behave in a way that is so inconsistent with its theoretical position. Angus district council, for example, which is the only council that is under nationalist control, will co-operate fully in collecting the community charge; and now that the nationalists on Tayside, as the hon. Gentleman has claimed, wish to provide incentives to ensure that the community charge is raised as quickly and as smoothly as possible, I look forward to welcoming their continuing support in every possible way.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether I could ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he can explain kindly to my English constituents why it is that per capita expenditure in Scotland is, and always has been, much higher than it is in England. I think he can reassure them that it is not because the Government are trying, to reward Scotland for a predilection for voting Socialist, but perhaps has something to do with the fact that Scotland is heavily over-represented in the House, which enables a massive distortion in the pressure for the allocation of public expenditure. May I suggest to him, as a member of a Cabinet that wishes to cut public expenditure, that the easiest way to do that would be to cut the number of hon. Members from Scotland in the House? Could he further say that, if there is any party in the House that has any silly ideas for tinkering with the proposal for devolution, the condition precedent for anything like that taking place would be a massive reduction in Scottish seats in the House?
Mr. Rifkind: I have to say to my hon. Friend that he is certainly right in saying that institutional arrangements for the representation of Scottish constituencies in Parliament have not done any harm with regard to the allocation of resources in the United Kingdom over the years, but he must bear in mind that the nature of many Scottish constituencies is somewhat different, from a geographical point of view, from his own slightly more compact constituency. Although Scotland may have only 9 or 10 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom, its land mass represents 30 to 40 per cent. of the total land mass of Britain and, as a consequence, expenditure on roads, houses, schools and health cannot have the same benefits of scale that are sometimes available to his constituency and, perhaps, mine.
Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for restoring me to my traditional position of sweeper.
Does the Secretary of State recall his visit to Cumnock and Doon Valley in the summer? If he does, he will be aware that the people of Cumnock and Doon Valley will judge whether he is to be considered a Santa Claus or a Scrooge in the light of his statement, and on the basis of whether it will enable the Cumnock and Auchinleck

785
bypass, which was so drastically cut from the programme last year when everything was ready to go ahead, to be restored to the programme? Can he give me an assurance that it will go ahead in the next financial year, and can he say whether, in his extensive provisions, he has made just a modest little contribution for an appropriate celebration when Heart of Midlothian return with the UEFA cup?
Mr. Rifkind: I will bear in mind the latter suggestion on the likely achievements of that football club, which is well known to me. My visit to Cumnock and Doon Valley was a very pleasant experience and I have become familiar with the perspective of the hon. Gentleman about the needs of his constituents. Matters involving the individual allocation to local authorities have still to be determined. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind.
Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you heard, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was making a

£million

1988–89

1989–90

1990–91

1991–92

Cm. 288-II1 provision

Cm. 288-II1 provision

Revised provision2

Cm. 288-II1 Provision

Revised provision2

provision2

Net

Gross3

Net

Gross3

Net

Gross3

Net

Gross3

Agriculture

197

198

211

204

205

210

200

200

210

210

Industry

267

289

261

277

307

260

280

310

280

310

Tourism

15

16

16

17

19

20

20

20

20

20

Transport

615

616

660

700

701

680

740

740

750

750

Housing

639

882

698

599

1,057

720

640

1,020

680

1,150

Other environmental services

693

750

710

706

768

740

720

780

750

800

Law, order and protective services

681

692

692

741

744

710

760

760

780

780

Education

2,186

2,188

2,226

2,354

2,360

2,290

2,400

2,400

2,480

2,480

Arts and libraries

88

88

94

95

95

100

100

100

100

100

Health and social work

2,830

2,838

2,948

3,182

3,189

3,070

3,310

3,320

3,450

3,460

Other public services

125

125

130

122

122

130

130

130

140

140

LA current expenditure not allocated to services

40

40

41

37

37

40

40

40

40

40

Nationalised industries external financing

134

134

-74

-61

-61

-190

-210

-210

—

—

48,510

8,856

8,610

8,973

9,543

8,780

9,130

9,610

9,680

10,240

Note: Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are rounded to the nearest £10 million.
1 White Paper (Cm. 288-II) figures adjusted for pre-survey changes.
2 Figures reflect survey changes and changes since the Autumn Statement. Some figures may be subject to detailed technical amendment.
3 Gross provision consists of total net provision plus capital receipts and for housing, from 1989–90, some Scottish Homes' loan repayments.
4 The figure differs from the net outturn figure of £8,720 million shown in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement for 1988–89; the main differences are continued spending by local authorities above the level provided for and NHS pay settlements.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]
factual statement referring to the comments, on the record, of the SNP on Tayside regional council, that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, "It's all lies." I am sure that you would want him to explain that he was not suggesting that my hon. Friend was telling lies when he gave that factual report.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with the matter. I was listening carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and I was trying to interpret "twit"—what I understood to be an endearing term in Scotland although it is less so in England—so I did not hear what else was going on. Does the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan want to correct that?
Mr. Salmond: Yes. The word I used was "rubbish" and I am happy to stick to that.
Mr. Speaker: In that spirit, we shall move on.
[Following is the table:

Orders of the Day

  Electricity Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  [Relevant documents: Third report of the Energy Committee of Session 1987–88 on the Structure, Regulation and Economic Consequences of Electricity Supply in the Private Sector (House of Commons Paper 307), and the third special report of the Committee of the same Session containing the Government's observations on the third report ( House of Commons Paper 701).]
  Mr. Speaker: There were some inordinately long speeches earlier yesterday afternoon. I propose, therefore, to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 8 pm today. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are called after that time will endeavour to keep to that limit, because it enables all who wish to be called to be accommodated.
  I must announce to the House that yesterday, I selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): As I listened yesterday to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I could not help but note that he presented himself as a champion of the consumer and based many of his arguments on benefits that the consumer would enjoy if a Labour Government could be elected or if Labour policies could be pursued.
  In the kindest and gentlest way possible, I exhort the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) not to be tempted in a similar direction. If he sought to present himself as a champion of the Scottish consumer, I should have to remind him that, under the present Government, electricity prices in Scotland have increased by the equivalent of 2 per cent. in real terms, whereas from 1974 to 1979 they increased by no less than 20 per cent. in real terms. That phenomenon was repeated throughout the United Kingdom.
  Let us judge the Opposition not by their words but by their deeds, because that will provide us with a fine basis on which to determine the implications for the consumer. An additional factor is that the Bill allows for the first time for compensation to be given to the consumer in the event of an inadequate service being provided. I understand that the Opposition are to vote against that provision, which is unprecedented in this country.
  I listened with great care yesterday to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) who, having made his contribution to the debate, appears to have decided that it was not necessary to be present for the second day. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] We should be very pleased indeed if the hon. Gentleman could return every time we mentioned his name. He bewailed the fact that there was not to be a separate Scottish Bill and implied that the Government had made an improper and unacceptable decision in that respect.
  I wished to be absolutely fair to the hon. Gentleman, so I examined his argument, which I found totally devoid of
  788
  coherence. He did not at any time explain, for example, why it was acceptable for the Labour Government to bring together 53 Scottish undertakings with 500 English undertakings in a single Act of Parliament in 1947, but unacceptable for a Conservative Government to return to the private sector, in a much simpler way, the consequences of that nationalisation.
  I presume that the hon. Member for Cathcart has paid the Bill cursory attention and will know that, of 103 clauses, only five refer exclusively to Scottish affairs. That means that, if we had accepted his advice, we should have burdened the House with two major Bills, largely identical in form and substance.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Secretary of State will recall that one of my questions yesterday elicited that response from the Secretary of State for Energy. To read the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman one would have thought that I was not here yesterday, but we are getting used to that. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) had asked the question, we should all have read about it on the front page of every newspaper.
  Does not the Secretary of State agree that the arguments advanced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) were valid? When the industry was nationalised, we had one Minister and one Department to deal with it. Now, however, the Secretary of State for Scotland has separate responsibilities. The reason that he did not want to have a separate Bill for Scotland was that he would have had to appoint a Scottish Committee to consider it. He does not have the troops to man Scottish Standing Committees, just as he does not have the troops to man the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman come clean?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman said that he was puzzled that his remarks did not get into the press; his most recent contribution provides us with a convincing explanation for that. As I have tried to explain, 98 of the 103 clauses do not refer specifically to Scotland, so to insist on a separate Bill of a comparable size would therefore have been absurd. It was certainly not the policy pursued by the Labour Government when it nationalised the industry, in a much more complex way, in 1947, and I do not recall the Labour party objecting to that decision.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Secretary of State has argued positively and specifically that there should be only one Bill. Perhaps he will explain why, when I raised the matter earlier this year, he told the House that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy had not yet made up their minds.
  Mr. Rifkind: We had not made up our minds then because we wanted to identify the extent of the difference between a Scottish Bill and an English Bill. We decided that it would be pretty silly for the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with two major Bills 97 per cent. of whose provisions were identical. I suspect that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) might have reached the same conclusion had he thought about the matter. I recollect that, at the beginning of the last Labour Government's period of office, they proposed to introduce provisions for elected assemblies for Scotland and Wales in a single Bill. It took several months, if not years. of

  789
  argument to persuade them that that was not entirely appropriate. Opposition Members should look to their own record.
  I shall concentrate on the elements of the electricity industry that are distinctive to Scotland, but first, I shall comment on the main thrust of the Opposition's arguments yesterday. It emerged clearly from the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the Labour party in the 1980s remains wedded to the concept of monopoly. We have known for many years that monopoly, whether private or public, is undesirable if it can be avoided. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission exists precisely to try to prevent the emergence of unnecessary monopolies.
  I had hoped that the Opposition would address the matter from the same starting point as the Government: we have had a state monopoly for 40 years and if it is possible in any way significantly to diminish the monopoly element in the electricity industry we should do so. We should not be divided on that on a doctrinal basis.
  The Government have never sought to suggest that electricity is an industry that can be considered suitable for the application of classical concepts of competition. Of course that is not possible, and of course aspects of the electricity industry are natural monopolies. Nevertheless, it is clear that under the Bill it will be possible to introduce real competition in a number of sectors of the electricity industry for the first time. For example, independent generators will have the opportunity to come forward, and in various parts of the United Kingdom there will be competition between generators.
  In addition, industrial bulk purchasers of electricity will have the opportunity to choose where to purchase their electricity. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Scotland?"] The provision will apply in Scotland. If hon. Members had read the Bill, they would know that provision for common carriage for electric power applies throughout the United Kingdom, and that bulk purchasers in Scotland will not be obliged to purchase all their electricity from the generator in their area. In addition, the opportunity available to Scotland to export surplus electricity will mean considerable competition as regards the best terms for that, which will be of considerable benefit to the Scottish consumer.
  No one has suggested for a moment that perfect competition will be available in the electricity industry. The hon. Member for Sedgefield seems to suggest that, if we cannot have perfect competition, a monopoly is preferable. That is totally at variance with the experience of the rest of the Western world, and against the interests of the British public, whether in Scotland or in England.
  The Opposition's assumption that the electricity industry under state control has had a perfect record of planning for the future needs to be examined. [HON. MEMBERS: "No one has said that."] I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Sedgefield said specifically that the whole purpose of nationalisation was to get away from 80 per cent. over-capacity in the electricity industry. I have to inform the Opposition that over-capacity is not a problem of the past. In England there is under-capacity and in Scotland there is not 80 per cent. but almost 100 per cent. over-capacity. That offers considerable benefits to the Scottish electricity industry. As a Scottish consumer I am
  790
  not complaining about that phenomenon, but whether the British taxpayer has benefited from that system is another matter.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Secretary of State accept that if, at any time in the past three years, with the opening of Torness coming up, he could have doubled the size of the interconnectors, Scotland would be exporting 2 GW instead of 1 GW to England, and the problems of the Scottish coal mining industry in the past two years would have been solved? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept responsibility for planning alongside the Secretary of State for Energy in the past two years.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. Electricity consumers in Scotland demand less than 6,000 MW. As a consequence, we have doubled the capacity in Scotland, and it now stands at 12,000 MW.
  Mr. Morgan: The same problem applies in Wales.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman confirms my point, that state control and central planning have not led to a rational distribution in the provision of electricity capacity, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield implied was the purpose of nationalisation in the first place.
  The third factor is that, as long as an industry is ultimately controlled by the state and by Ministers, there will inevitably be political interference in the running of that industry. That has been the experience of all nationalised industries, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government.
  One of the electricity industry's crucial requirements is that, as with every other industry in the private sector in the United Kingdom, it should be able to make its own investment decisions based on its investment needs and on the resources that it can raise in order to fund that investment. But the House must be aware that, under successive Governments over many years, the borrowing limits of nationalised industries have in part been determined by their investment requirements and in part by the Government's overall public expenditure policy. It must be the case that the electricity industry, unlike those in the private sector, has been penalised in that it has not been able to plan on the basis of its requirements exactly what its investment requirements may be.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: What else are the provisions in the Bill relating to nuclear power, except a means of preventing the privatised companies from making their investment decisions and political interference by the Government in the industry's investment decisions?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that specific powers in certain aspects of the industry remain available to Governments, but I hope that he is not suggesting that complete control over all the industry's investment decisions is preferable.
  We have never said that the Government should wash their hands of all matters involving the electricity industry, which has strategic importance in the United Kingdom, as the Bill makes abundantly clear. My point is that, until now, all the industry's investment decisions have been subject to Government control. The fact that in future that will apply to one specific area—nuclear power—is considered a significant improvement by the industry.

  791
  Let me deal now with the specific conclusions that we have reached on the implications of privatisation for the electricity industry in Scotland. We start with three specific features that are peculiar to the industry in Scotland. First, Scotland has a diversity of resources for electricity generation hardly to be found in any other part of the United Kingdom. Oil, coal, hydro, and nuclear are in abundance. That is peculiar to north of the border.
  Secondly, as I have already said, we have a surplus capacity which is unprecedented in the United Kingdom and which offers substantial opportunities, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, through the development of the interconnector, for export to other parts of the kingdom which do not have such a surplus.
  Thirdly, Scotland has a substantial nuclear capacity. Over 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity requirements will be provided by the nuclear part of the industry when the Torness power station has been commissioned.
  It is against that background that we examined the precise and proper way to privatise the industry in Scotland. The first question that had to be examined was vertical integration. For a number of years, Scotland's industry has been administered on the basis of vertical integration of generation, transmission and distribution. We did not automatically assume that that was essential; we looked at the matter with an open mind to see whether it made sense in the Scottish context to divide generation from transmission and distribution.
  We came to the conclusion that that would be inappropriate, for two reasons. First, the size of the Scottish market makes it inappropriate. Electricity demand in Scotland is equal to about the equivalent of one English board. Therefore, to divide generation from transmission and distribution would have created relatively small companies whose prospects of economic viability would have been far more uncertain. In addition, we would have had to take into account the fact that, in the north of Scotland, in the area of the Hydro Board, a proportion of the hydro power is dedicated in terms of distribution to particular parts of the north of Scotland, from which it could not be physically separated. For those reasons, plus Scotland's particular demography, we concluded that vertical integration made sense and should be continued.
  The next question was whether there should be a single Scottish private company or two. I am bound to say that our announcement that we had concluded in favour of two Scottish companies was widely welcomed on both sides of the House by all political parties. It was not an easy decision, because, while there was a natural desire to prevent the creation of a single private monopoly in Scotland of the kind that would have been achieved if the South of Scotland electricity board's proposal had been adopted, there was on the other hand a recognition that electricity generation in Scotland had been developed on the basis of a single market and, particularly with regard to nuclear power, on the basis that it would be available to consumers in all parts of Scotland.
  It was on that basis that we put forward the proposals that we announced in the White Paper and subsequently —the creation of two companies in Scotland based on the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, but with certain exchanges on a contractual basis of capacity and other such matters. In addition, a nuclear company was to be created, wholly owned by the south company and the north company, in order to ensure
  792
  availability throughout Scotland of nuclear power in a form that meets the requirements of the Scottish consumer.
  We took account of the fact that, until now, there has been a joint generating agreement which has had certain advantages through the application of the merit order scheme, but which has also had certain disadvantages because it has concealed the costs of the two parts of the industry, which is undesirable from the consumers' point of view. Therefore, we sought to develop a system which enabled the merit order approach to continue for the benefit of the consumer, but which created a new transparency with regard to the respective costs of the generation of electricity in the two companies. That can only be to the benefit of the public.
  As a result of the decision to create two companies, we have had to consider the role of the regulator. We have accepted from the beginning that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, where there is not proper competition throughout the industry it is necessary to have a director general to deal with regulation and for him to have the primary responsibility of ensuring that, in those aspects of the industry where competition does not apply, the consumer should be properly protected and that other matters should be properly dealt with.
  As we have made clear, the director general is a joint appointment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and me. I noticed that last night the hon. Member for Cathcart expressed some anxiety, incredulity or dubiety about how the director general could be answerable to two Secretaries of State. This is not an unusual phenomenon. The Forestry Commission is answerable to three Secretaries of State in respect of its functions in the various parts of the kingdom. There is no reason why that should not apply in the case of the director general. He will have an office in Scotland, as in England, along with a staff to service the requirements of regulation north of the border. There is no reason to believe that his responsibilities will not be effectively carried out.
  To consider, instead of that arrangement, having a separate Scottish director general would have been foolish because, in practice, they would have had to work so closely together as to make the separation of their responsibilities one of form rather than substance. If Scotland is to benefit from the substantial export of surplus electricity south of the border, clearly, the questions of regulation, especially of the interconnector and of matters of equal interest to consumers both north and south of the border point to the sort of system proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Given that there is to be joint responsibility between the Secretary of State for Energy and himself, will the Secretary of State for Scotland say who will have the casting vote if they disagree?
  Mr. Rifkind: Which board is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Hood: If the two Secretaries of State disagree, who will have the casting vote?
  Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I live in almost total harmony from one day to the next. In the improbable scenario to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and on the rare occasions when

  793
  Ministers do not agree with one another, there are governmental procedures for resolving problems. There are precedents, even if they do not apply in this context. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to worry too much about that. I am sure that we shall be able to devise an appropriate procedure whereby agreement will be reached.
  Mr. Hood: Will the Secretary of State send me written details of the procedure, because I would be interested to see them?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly consider that constructive request, but the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, as his question is hypothetical, so my answer will be based on an improbable hypothesis.
  The role of the regulator is specified in a number of detailed ways in the Bill. I wish to comment particularly on the non-fossil fuel obligation and the attendant levy which is dealt with in the Bill.
  Liability for a non-fossil fuel obligation applies in principle throughout the United Kingdom but there is no need in the foreseeable future for an order applying it to Scotland because of the high level of nuclear capacity in Scotland, which will be substantially enhanced when Torness becomes available.
  Clearly, there will be no need in the foreseeable future for any additional provision for non-fossil fuel. That also applies to the levy, which is a consequence of the non-fossil fuel obligation. Any exports that the Scottish industry may make to the distribution companies in England—this also applies to exports from elsewhere in the United Kingdom or from France—would be subject to that requirement in order to ensure a proper competitive relationship between those supplying the electricity industry.
  Mr. Foulkes: Would it be permissible for an English generating company to build a generating station in Scotland, in particular a nuclear power station?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is possible for anyone wishing to introduce new generation to seek to do so. They must obtain a licence from the director general. The rules governing the provision of such a licence in Scotland will be no different from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Whether, in the next few years, anyone is likely to wish to invest in a new nuclear power station in Scotland is another example of a hypothetical question. The legal procedure to be followed is clear.
  As hon. Members will have seen from the Bill and the information provided with it, the capital restructuring that may be required in Scotland is significant, and different from that in England and Wales. Largely as a consequence of the over-provision of capacity in Scotland, there is a high level of debt there. It stands at £2,700 million at present. As the House will have seen, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have the power, if he so chooses, to convert some of that debt into equity or debentures or to alter the capital structure of the companies in question before flotation takes place. No decisions have been reached on that at present, but those matters will have to be addressed in order to ensure that important public assets are dealt with in a responsible and constructive way.
  I shall now deal with the opportunities that will exist for Scotland and many English regions as a result of privatisation.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I hope that I am not interrupting the Secretary of State just as he is about to move on the coal industry and his responsibility, together with the Secretary of State for Energy, for ensuring the future of deep mining in Scotland. Surely, before Christmas, he will say something about the threat hanging over Longannet and other deep mining complexes in Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind: There are opportunities, challenges and concerns facing the coal industry in Scotland. We have seen a substantial expansion of the opencast sector of the industry.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: What opportunities are there for deep mining?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I will tell him.
  Over the past 10 years, there has been tremendous growth in the opencast sector, so that it is now producing over 50 per cent. of the coal mined in Scotland. The latest decision on the Kilroot power station in Northern Ireland provides further welcome opportunities for coal from the Ayrshire fields. The decision on that was welcomed by Members representing the area as good news for employment.
  Clearly, we hope to see a substantial future for the deep mining sector. Exports of surplus capacity provide the best prospects. If the two Scottish companies can export a significant proportion of their surplus electricity, it should be possible to see a significant demand for deep-mined coal in Scotland. Much of the answer to the problem lies with the coal industry through improvements in productivity and the quality of coal produced from the deep-mined pits. I hope, together with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), that it will be possible to see real developments which will secure the future of those pits. I cannot give any guarantee, but I believe that it will be influenced by the success in exporting surplus electricity in the way I have suggested.
  One of the most difficult aspects of the Opposition's view to understand is the implication of nationalisation and privatisation for regional policy. Over the years, we have seen a policy of nationalisation pursued by Labour Governments. Whatever the doctrinal or ideological reasons for that or whatever economic justification they may feel their arguments have had for the United Kingdom, there can be little doubt that one of the consequences of nationalisation was the diminution of the private sector in Scotland, Wales and many of the English regions.
  In successive nationalisations, we have seen the amalgamation of large numbers of private sector companies, many of them in the regions, and, as a consequence, the concentration of control in the hands of the Government of the day in London. Scottish Members, Welsh Members and hon. Members representing the English regions have been concerned that that has been a weakening factor for the economy of their regions.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Would the Secretary of State care to estimate the percentage diminution of the Scottish private sector during his tenure of office?
  Mr. Rifkind: Nothing that the Government have done in terms of legislation has led to the loss of a single private

  795
  sector company. Under successive Labour Governments, the opposite has taken place. For example, we know that the nationalisation of the electricity industry led to the nationalisation of some 53 separate Scottish undertakings, some of them municipal and others in the private sector. We know that, when British Shipbuilders was nationalised in 1977, it led to the loss of private sector companies such as John G. Kincaid in Greenock, Swan Hunter at Wallsend, Cammel Laird in Birkenhead and other companies in various parts of the United Kingdom.
  When British Steel was nationalised in 1967, it led to the transfer of control to London of Dorman Long and Company and of Colvilles, both from Scotland, of Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the Steel Company of Wales, and of the Consett Iron Company in north-east England. On each occasion that there has been nationalisation, one consequence has been the erosion of the private sector in the English regions and in Wales and Scotland. One of the consequences of privatisation will be a significant move in the opposite direction.
  It is not just I who take that view. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is not present in the Chamber today. Although, as I understand it, there was a limit on the time available to him in yesterday's debate, I am sorry that he did not repeat the remark he made in Central hall, Westminster, on 12 March, when he remarked that the privatisation of the electricity industry
  "would create powerful corporate headquarters in Scotland, Wales and the regions, which could be engines of growth for these economies."
  I am delighted that that is the view of the SLD's energy spokesman. One must assume that its members will go into the Government lobby this evening to help facilitate the creation of powerful corporate headquarters in Scotland, Wales and the English regions; if they choose not to do so, I shall be interested to know how they reconcile that decision with their own interpretation of the benefits that the Bill will bring.
  Mr. Salmond: If the Secretary of State will not say why he has allowed the diminution of Scottish private sector companies, will he say why, if he is asserting that privatisation means Scottish control, he did not argue for a Scottish Telecom, Scottish Gas or Scottish Steel?
  Mr. Rifkind: Since the hon. Gentleman and his party came to slightly greater prominence in the last few months, most of Scottish industry has been pointing out how disastrous it would be for the Scottish private sector if his party's views were ever translated into policy. I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's comments if he were not pursuing a policy disastrous for new as well as existing investment in Scotland.
  As to previous privatisation, we always seek to identify where it makes sense to implement separate Scottish or English privatisation, but as most right hon. and hon. Members believe in a united kingdom, it is not always appropriate or sensible to split an existing industry. In the case of electricity, we already have a Government-controlled structure of individual Scottish companies, so privatisation presents an exciting opportunity to see two new major Scottish companies established north of the border. The electricity industry has not been part of the Scottish private sector for 40 years. As a result of the Bill, it will be a major part of it, and those who wish to encourage the growth of Scottish-based companies welcome that.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept, that while the companies' headquarters may be in Scotland, Scotland does not have enough money to buy the companies? The lion's share of the issued shares will probably be owned outside Scotland and possibly abroad. The Government are merely transferring an electricity industry that we now own collectively to individuals who have little or no interest in Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman now uses arguments contrary to those that he used previously. He will acknowledge that the headquarters of the Scottish electricity industry must be based in Scotland. As a consequence, the industry's requirements will be serviced from within Scotland. As to ownership, both consumers and employees of the Scottish electricity companies will have an opportunity to acquire shares. I cannot anticipate, any more than the hon. Gentleman can, how they will respond to that opportunity. The hon. Gentleman will recall making the same criticisms with regard to the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. He now has egg on his face because of the response of the group's employees, who wish to acquire ownership of the companies in which they work.
  There are 5 million Scottish consumers north of the border who will have an opportunity to acquire shares, as will Scottish financial institutions and those who work for the industry. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view—
  Mr. Norman Hogg rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will not allow me to finish my remark, I can hardly be expected to give way to him.
  I cannot predict what proportion of the electricity industry will be acquired by shareholders resident in Scotland. I can predict that the industry's privatisation will create Scotland's two largest private sector companies and make an enormous contribution to the growth of private sector enterprise north of the border.
  Mr. Hogg: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that the headquarters of both Scottish electricity boards are already located in Scotland? Also, where does he get his figure of 5 million consumers? Scotland has a population of fewer than 5 million people, and even allowing for that tiny part of the north of England that is supplied by the SSEB, the boards' consumers cannot possibly total 5 million. Finally, given that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board accounts for only 2·5 per cent. of the nation's consumers, how many of them does the Minister estimate will purchase equity in the new companies?
  Mr. Rifkind: The creation of a private sector hydro-electric company presents an exciting opportunity to the north of Scotland. It will be by far the largest company there. As hydro-electric power has often been seen as a resource that comes from the north of Scotland, and as a renewable source in the Highlands and Islands, I thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides for the people of the Highlands and Islands, and of Scotland generally, to acquire at least a proportion of the company providing their electricity.

  797
  I conclude by referring to remarks made in the House on 3 February 1947 by the then Minister of Fuel and Power, Mr. Emanuel Shinwell, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill nationalising the electricity industry:
  "Electricity is an all-pervading service, and if it is to be satisfactory we must maintain the closest contact with local requirements, together with a sense of local responsibility … It is far from my desire that problems which can be settled locally shall be taken to London."—[Official Report, 3 February 1947; Vol. 432, c.1410.]
  Mr. Shinwell's solution, and that of the then Labour Government, was to nationalise 560 separate electricity undertakings and to transfer control of them to London. The Conservative Government of the 1950s broke up that state monopoly to some extent by the creation of the South of Scotland electricity board with headquarters in Scotland and answerable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is entirely appropriate that it should be another Conservative Government that propose taking that policy one stage further and creating two new Scottish electricity companies to meet the requirements of Scottish consumers in a more efficient, successful and dynamic way than it has been possible to enjoy for the past 40 years.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: If at some point during the course of this evening I descend into a strangled squeak, it will not be due to any lack of conviction in the arguments I advance.
  I was not greatly impressed by the arguments used by the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will not resent me saying so—although I give him praise for making a better speech than did his Minister of State last night.
  Responding to last night's debate, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), argued, almost as the theme of his speech, that the Government are privatising the electricity industry "because we bother". It would be overstating the case to say that that was a memorable comment.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has obviously caught my affliction, for allowing me to intervene. If he is to quote me, perhaps he will kindly do so accurately.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister said, "We bother", and then went on to speak of anything and everything except electricity privatisation. I thought that I would help him by trying to discover why the Government have bothered to take this course. I want to examine the rationale, and to look for some of the answers that Ministers have been unable to provide.
  As I understand it, the crux of the Government's argument is that, although privatisation may not produce "classical" competition, it at least produces useful competition. Competition is of course a slogan with which Ministers are at home, but it is not one that is universally applicable, and I consider it particularly inappropriate when applied to the electricity industry.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland criticised the industry's record, suggesting that it had either been negligent in some way or had simply not responded properly to market forces, with the result that we had been left with a heavy over-capacity. As one of my hon. Friend's
  798
  pointed out, that was a rather odd argument, particularly as one of the few props on which it is balanced in Scottish terms is over-capacity in relation to the interconnector and the possibility of sales south of the border.
  In any event, perhaps the Minister will agree with me that the electricity industry in Scotland has been—if I may coin a phrase—"efficient, well-managed and successful" in recent years. I use those words because the Minister used them in March this year. This is not a case of the industry having to hang its head in shame; it has done splendidly, and the Minister has said so. We are left with the assumption that, splendidly though it has done, it could do better under what I suppose would be called the spur of competition.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope that he can now rest his voice for a moment.
  Why is the hon. Gentleman so fulsome in joining in the Minister's praise of the SSEB, which has built nuclear capacity fat in excess of demand and in defiance of the wishes of many of the communities in which it has been based?
  Mr. Dewar: I do not know which communities the hon. Gentleman means, but I hold to my general point that the electricity industry has served the communities well in the broader sense. I will not be put off by the hon. Gentleman, who is very much in the second division of the Scottish league.
  Let us look at the arguments on competition which the Secretary of State has used, and to which he has very fairly referred today. On 2 March he said:
  "I do not consider that it would be acceptable to create a single monopoly which would place the ownership and control of the entire Scottish industry in a single set of hands, whether or not involving a regional sub-structure."—[Official Report, 2 March 1988; Vol 128, c. 977.]
  That was a rejection of the case argued by the SSEB, which wished for one company in Scotland with two wholly owned operating subsidiaries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman invited us to assume that, while a monopoly supplier and generator would not do, if by some sleight of hand or alchemy that single monopoly were split into two monopolies, complete in their own right, Scottish consumers would be given the necessary advantages. As an argument, that is rather lame, as I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises.
  The Secretary of State returned to the argument on 7 March, however. On that occasion he unveiled for the first time the argument to which he referred today, the argument about non-classical competition. He said:
  "I must advise those hon. Members"—
  that is, those who had made a mockery of his arguments— "that they start from a false premise, so it is not surprising that they reach a wrong conclusion. They start from the false premise that the Government are somehow maintaining that it is possible to achieve classical standards of competition in the electricity industry… my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made it clear that, in transmission and distribution, we are dealing with natural monopolies."—[Official Report, 7 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 117]
  I am sure that he did make it clear, and for once he got it right: we are dealing with natural monopolies. Now, with great tenacity but no conviction, Ministers maintain that we are not dealing with natural monopolies, and that a form of useful competition is being achieved. That was given very short shrift by the House and by the Select Committee.

  799
  On 2 March the Secretary of State went on to say:
  "The two-company structure will provide competitive pressures within the industry in Scotland. In the short term, there will be potential for competition by comparison—".
  At that point he was interrupted by laughter, an unusual accolade for one of his efforts. He continued:
  "—by which means customers will have a basis for comparing and assessing the prices and service they receive. By helping to ensure effective regulation of prices, this will be an important gain for the consumer."—[0fficial Report, 2 March 1988; Vol. 128, c. 977.]
  If the Secretary of State believes that, he is the only person who does. The Select Committee on Energy, chaired by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and with a Conservative majority, pointed out that yardstick competition was largely meaningless. That was a pretty fair and balanced summation.
  I am prepared to concede that in theory there may be some marginal advantages for large industrial consumers, but only for a small handful, certainly in Scotland. Almost all other industrial consumers, and certainly all domestic consumers, will see the "competition by comparison" argument as empty and rather cruel nonsense. I believe that even in Government circles there is a lack of confidence about it. In their response to the Energy Committee report, at paragraph 62, the Government refer to
  "Indirect competitive pressures… The key role of the Director in analysing and publicising the performances of the two companies"—
  here they strike a rather anti-climactic and unconfident note—
  "should not be under-estimated."
  It probably should not be underestimated; it would certainly be very difficult to overestimate it. I should have thought that if it exists at all it is at the margin of the edge of any reasonable argument.
  Let us suppose that I am a domestic consumer in the city of Glasgow—part of which I happen to represent—and, following the advice of the Secretary of State, do a comparative study in depth. I get hold of all the regulatory tables and figures and come to the conclusion that the privatised monopoly that services me is not doing the job that it should be doing. What can I do? I challenge the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell me what I can do except continue to take the electricity and nurse my anger to keep it warm.
  Mr. Rifkind: May I make two points? First, certainly nothing could be done at present. Secondly, under the Bill, for the first time the consumer will be entitled to compensation if he is receiving inadequate services from his electricity company. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is proposing to vote against the Bill containing those provisions.
  Mr. Dewar: If I can find a chartered accountant who will, on an analysis of financial performance, return on capital, assets and tariffs conclude that the SSEB—or a successor private company—is doing worse than, let us say, the East Anglia board, can I lodge a claim for compensation?
  Mr. Rifkind: First, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we were talking about standards of service. Secondly, he should remember that bulk purchasers of electricity will indeed be able to change their source of supply, which they certainly cannot do now. Again, the
  800
  hon. Gentleman is saying that, because perfect competition is impossible, we should stick with total monopoly.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not think that for the vast majority of consumers there will be any competition worth talking about. The advantages being advertised simply do not exist, and the Government should face up to that.
  The Government have been caught in complete confusion over their arguments. On the one hand they boast that privatisation will be an enormous asset: they have to do that to bolster the competition case. On the other hand they boast that regulation will stop or at least limit the damage that would result if competition actually existed.
  The major point that the Secretary of State is making again and again—he made it, fairly, during this debate—is that Government interference in the electricity industry is a bad thing, as are inhibitions placed on managerial judgment; that they should be done away with, and would be at least diminished by privatisation.
  On 7 March, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the inevitability that
  "any industry controlled by Government is subject to interference from Government."—[Official Report, 7 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 116.]
  There is some truth is that, although interference is a pejorative way of putting it, yet in almost every speech the Minister will be spiriting up as a reassurance the all-embracing omnicompetent registrar, suggesting that he will protect us against the dangers and the damage that could result from competition and from handing over an essential service to a company that is run on the basis of profit and the interests of the shareholders.
  Paragraph 29 of the Select Committee report states:
  "There will be a price control formula which will limit the price to be charged to consumers."
  We are being reassured that there will be someone to limit the price rises that we would have expected if we merely handed over a natural monopoly to a group of directors with a legal duty to maximise profits for the shareholders. That is the essence of our case. The Government are asking a group of directors, a private company, a profit engine to act in a way not normal to such an animal. On one hand the Government are saying, "That is what we are creating," and on the other hand they are rushing to stop it acting in the way for which it was built by appointing an all-powerful registrar.
  Non-classic competition simply will not do. As the Secretary of State for Energy said, it is a natural monopoly, and natural monopolies force up profit margins and prices and have to be regulated. That is the catch 22, the inconsistency in the Government's case which has not been answered properly.
  Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am happy to give way to the only Scottish Conservative Member in the House.
  Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever may be the case about distribution, generation is certainly not a natural monopoly?
  Mr. Dewar: It will be an actual monopoly in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman dislikes that, no doubt he will table a relevant amendment to the Bill when the opportunity arises.

  801
  I now turn to the arrangements for the regulator—a rather odd and distinctive argument. The Bill is silent here, and I take the Minister's point that it is not necessary to spell out which Secretary of State will be in control or which Secretaries of State will have a finger in the pie. However, there is a case for a separate regulator for Scotland. The arguments were set out perfectly well in the Select Committee's report to which I have referred. Paragraph 60 of the Select Committee report makes it clear that there will be a separate office in Scotland and a separate Scottish official who will
  "be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland for all he does in relation to the Scottish industry."
  Logically, there should be a separate regulator. It is not a matter of enormous principle, but that would be the sensible, practical approach. I certainly prefer the views of the Select Committee to those of the Secretary of State.
  I am disappointed by what the Secretary of State had to say about the independence of the companies being created in Scotland. I make my point more forcibly because my disappointment was sharpened by the trailing in the press of the important and exciting things that the Secretary of State would say. Today's edition of The Scotsman remarked that he would
  "outline the powers that will be taken to act as a barrier to a takeover from abroad or from England."
  However, we received only an interesting account of the possibilities of share ownership in Scotland, but no guarantees as to how the control or the independence of the companies would be maintained.
  This is not a minor point, and as the Secretary of State knows it is spelt out again in paragraph 14 of the Select Committee report:
  "The electricity industry is of considerable strategic importance. The new companies will therefore be protected from unwelcome takeover by the retention by Government of a special share."
  We are entitled to a good deal more detail than that. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will say something about it, as presumably it applies in England as it does in Scotland.
  The Scottish companies will be small—certainly the northern company will be small by international or United Kingdom standards—and I should have thought that they will be open to a predatory raid. I hope that we shall hear something about the defences that will be put in place and how those defences will be manned. I am sure that the Minister will accept that there is cynicism in Scotland, particularly after the Britoil experience, about golden shares and the reserve of powers to Ministers. It is very important that those matters are spelt out adequately during the passage of the Bill.
  Perhaps the Minister, or the Secretary of State for Energy, will say a few words about the terms and conditions of the sale and when the Scottish companies are likely to be on offer. Has a running order been decided? I am told, and there are certain strong rumours, that four English distribution companies will go first, then one of the generating companies and then possibly one or both of the Scottish companies. It would be fair and useful if we were told about those decisions, if they have been taken.
  I was also disappointed that the Secretary of State remained pretty mum about the interconnector. We all know that its present capacity is equivalent to 850 MW and that plans or a scheme propose its expansion to 1,600
  802
  MW. Obviously that is immensely important in terms of the coal burn in Scotland and the capacity of the Scottish power generating industry. I am told that the cost will be £ 180 million. I am not sure whether it will go ahead before privatisation, or if not, whether the English distribution companies or the Scottish Office will make a contribution to the costs. Again, we should know about that if we are to have an informed debate about the future.
  Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend makes some very cogent points about the Scottish dimension of this important Bill. Will he reflect on the absence from the particularly Scottish dimension of the debate and the previous debate, when Scottish public expenditure was considered, of the brand-new hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)? The hon. Member for Govan told the House, and constantly has been telling Scotland, about the way in which he would oppose the Conservative Government. He has not been here this afternoon, but I was telephoned by an irate constituent who saw the hon. Member for Govan at 1.30 pm today doing his Christmas shopping in Marks and Spencer in Argyll street, Glasgow. [Laughter.] Is it not amazing that on the very afternoon when the Secretary of State is making his diabolical statement about public expenditure, the man who was going to take Parliament by storm—the hon. Member for Govan—is not here?
  Mr. Dewar: Occasionally, I think that we hear to much about the detailed doings of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). However, I share my hon. Friend's astonishment, particularly as the hon. Member for Govan might have seen Christmas as an unpleasant English importation into Scottish culture.
  Mr. Salmond: I am having some difficulty with my arithmetic. I was trying to do a quick count of the number of missing Scottish Labour Members. I do not know whether they are doing their Christmas shopping, but perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will help me and give me the official version of where they are?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions do not help us get on with the debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members seek to take part in a debate and interventions will have to be taken into account to determine who catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Dewar: I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not my fault. I am doing my best.
  I turn back to the much less interesting subject of the debt structure of the SSEB, which is about £2·7 billion. It is not often remembered that the debt of the north of Scotland board is just as heavy pro rata as that of the southern board, which is not surprising as it has pooled generation and distribution costs. Despite what the Minister said about no decisions having been taken, I hope that he will at least note that we expect to have some details of what is intended, at least in Committee. Clearly, the amount that will be written off will affect the price of the share offer and have an impact on people's ability to afford electricity. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming.
  Last Friday, in The Scotsman under the byline of Mr. Keith Aitken, the industrial editor, there was an interesting report of a meeting in Torness held by Mr.

  803
  Donald Miller, the chairman of the SSEB. The burden of Mr. Miller's remarks was that the company cannot be privatised
  "unless the Government writes off a large part of the £2·2 billion debts it incurred in building them."
  He was referring to nuclear power stations. Clearly, the electricity board is as anxious as hon. Members. I hope that in Committee we shall hear more from the Minister.
  I turn to the important matter of nuclear power. The Secretary of State has decided that there will be a nuclear company which will hold all the nuclear capacity of the south board and will be wholly owned by the south and the north companies in a 75:25 proportion—there has been some debate about the precise proportion. I understand that the minority position of the north board will be protected in the memorandum and articles of association and that there will be reserved functions—it sounds a little like the voting structure of the EEC. I gather that there will be reserved functions in terms of capital expenditure, pricing policy and so on, where the unanimity rule will apply. Apart from that, the company will run as a normal company. The Minister may want to say something about that point.
  I should like the Minister to address his mind to the extraordinarily strong words uttered by Mr. Donald Miller, the SSEB's chairman, when dealing, not with the physical dangers but with the financial dangers of having an electricity board concerned with a substantial nuclear presence. Mr. Miller was blunt, strong and almost brutal on the subject. He said that there were a large number of uncertainties and unquantifiable possible costs which were dependent upon Government policy and the pricing policies of British Nuclear Fuels plc and which could create problems for any private company trying to operate. As the Secretary of State knows, Mr. Miller has good reason for fearing that problem. The SSEB's annual report for the last financial year shows a trading profit of about £13 million, which was promptly converted into a loss of £70 million because of the costs of transferring Chapelcross to Cumbria, the reprocessing costs—which the board had planned to postpone for decades but was told by the Government it could not—and the ever-escalating BNFL reprocessing charges.
  Mr. Miller's message to the Secretary of State—it is important in view of its source —is that, unless he gets an undertaking that clause 88 will be fully implemented and the taxpayer will underwrite any of those bills as and when they come and unless he gets what he declares to be the "ultimate insurance", the company will be unsellable. Mr. Miller says that those assurances
  "will have to be signed and sealed before one writes a prospectus—otherwise it will not be worth writing."
  That is a serious charge, coming as it does from the person who, presumably, will be the chairman-designate of the new private company. He says that his company will be unsellable unless he gets a great deal of information and a guarantee from the Government under clause 88.
  Mr. Miller says that the Government must respond now and accept those liabilities on behalf of the taxpayer. If the Minister accepts that, there are serious repercussions for the taxpayer and the scheme's viability and acceptability. If he does not, we should in all honesty have —after all the glitz and the glamour and the wonders worked by the image-makers in the television advertising campaign to sell the company—a Government health warning saying, "Despite all this, the chairman of the
  804
  company believes that his company is unsellable in the absence of guarantees that we are not prepared to give." If we doubt whether the honesty to give that guarantee and to face up to the problems will be forthcoming, we are entitled to say that there is a fundamental flaw in the scheme.
  I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to respond on this point. That is the bluntest possible warning from Mr. Miller and it is essential that the Goverment respond to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]
  Mr. Keith Mans rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has an honoured place in the Conservative kindergarten on Scottish affairs but I am interested in the attitude of the Secretary of State. Does he accept the point made by the SSEB's chairman that the SSEB cannot be responsibly, sold unless we spell out the taxpayers' liability under clause 88? Does the Minister accept that or does he repudiate it, and, if so, on what grounds? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  The Secretary of State will not be surprised to know that we shall return to this matter at some length during later stages of the Bill. With such an important statement by such a central figure in the public domain, the Secretary of State is letting himself and the House down by refusing to address himself to those remarks.
  Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Bill already provides for certain guarantees and for certain provision to be made by the Secretary of State in appropriate circumstances. No doubt we shall have plenty of opportunities to consider the precise terms of the clause in question.
  Mr. Dewar: Unless we get further information before we come to the selling point, we are entitled to go around quoting Mr. Donald Miller as saying that the company cannot be prudently bought by a prudent investor I hope that that aspect will be properly represented in the Government's doubtless balanced advertising of the issue.
  With the Secretary of State, I have watched with fascination the growth of the energy debate, especially the debate on nuclear power. I am used to Ministers lecturing us. The Minister of State, Scottish Office did so yesterday. We are used to board chairmen courteously instructing us about the "competitive cutting edge" and the absolute advantage for the consumer, the board and the commonweal of Scotland of the nuclear baseload. The message is that every commercial piece of logic would drive any sensible board down the nuclear road. But then I read what is in the Bill—the references to fossil fuel levies and the 20 per cent. statutory obligation on generating companies. Now we have Mr. Donald Miller pointing to the dangers and uncertainties with which industry must live when 60 per cent. of the units sold, as in Scotland, come from the nuclear baseload.
  More interesting is Mr. Miller's view that, whether the industry can or cannot live with it, shareholders cannot be expected to do so and the taxpayer will have to take the strain. It is essential that the Secretary of State spell out exactly how much will be available and what it will cost, and that he come clean. He knows, as I do, that the public are nervous—they raise this matter repeatedly with hon. Members on both sides of the House—about the handover to the private sector of such a sensitive aspect as nuclear power. The scramble to reassure people with references to

  805
  the nuclear installations inspectorate and the control which will be tightly imposed does nothing to eliminate the persistent and clamouring doubt that safety standards will possibly be squeezed in the long run and that we are moving a particularly inappropriate industry out of the public sector and putting it into the hands of the private sector.
  The Government cannot walk away from the strategic decisions that must be taken and that dominate this important industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said that vital talks will take place over the next few days on the coal burn in Scotland and the contracts between the SSEB and British Coal. I use the word "vital"—a much misused term—advisedly because the future of the industry and the jobs of thousands of people could be at stake.
  The Minister talks about opportunities and challenges in a sort of dismissive way, a pep talk for the young. There has been major investment in our coal industry and designated pits have been sunk, such as those in the area of Longannet, to serve the power stations. Security of supply is still a weighty consideration in this nation's energy planning—or it ought to be. The Peterhead station will take 50 per cent. of its energy in the form of sour gas from the Miller field. British Petroleum is talking about importing coal from Australia and other companies are talking about importing it from Lord knows where else.
  In 1987, the South of Scotland electricity board responded to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission audit report by making it clear that it did not think that it was in the long-term interests of its consumers, or in the public interest, to start importing all its coal rather than taking it from the Scottish fields. The board was right then and it will be right now to rethink what we understand to be its present position.
  Mr. Mans: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Scottish industry or Scottish consumers should suffer a coal tax so that Scottish coal can be bought, even though it turns out to be even more expensive than imported coal?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I am not saying that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apply the prejudice that he has just displayed to the fuel tax that is contained in the Bill.
  There is a strong national interest in maintaining security of supply. That is what weighed with the SSEB in 1987, and it should not dismiss that consideration now. Of course, the Minister may say that it is different now because the industry is to be privatised and that there is no need to bother about the national interest to the same extent. If that is the argument, it reinforces the case against the Bill a hundred times. We have been trying for months to coax, persuade, or even force the Minister to go beyond the pious hopes that he has expressed that some agreement can be reached. We have not succeeded, but we shall continue to try because this matter is of real and vital national importance. We at least recognise that there is a public interest in the debate. The Government should recognise what we know to be there.
  I note that the SNP amendment has been selected for a Division, and I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for that amendment. No doubt the Committee will be selected very shortly. Whatever the Minister's view about a separate Bill and the process of parliamentary
  806
  scrutiny, he will surely join me in saying that it is important that the distinctive Scottish aspects of the argument to which he properly addressed his attention in his 30 to 40-minute speech are properly examined and echoed in the Committee. This is an important point, although it may sound like a narrow, procedural one.
  I hope that he will agree that that cannot be done if the Committee is cast on such a scale that it will contain, at most, two or three Scottish Members apart from a Front Bencher. We shall press, and shall expect to have his support, for an unusually large Committee on which there can be proper representation, not only by my hon. Friends but by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is offering his services, as ever, in this cause. What a trooper!
  We look at the Bill with growing gloom. I accept that it is attractive to the Treasury and I suspect that it has a great deal to do with the greater glory of the Secretary of State for Energy. Perhaps, if the price is outrageously discounted, there may even be something for a few shareholders looking for a quick profit. However, there is nothing in it for the consumer and nothing for the nation. When we look, for example, at the history of the gas industry since privatisation in terms of consumer experience, we see some of the warning examples that lead me to that conclusion.
  I acknowledge that we know a little more about the Government's plans, although we still do not know enough. We have seen some horse trading on assets between the north and south boards. We have seen 600 MW of coal capacity being swapped for the Cruachan pumped storage system and we have seen 50 per cent. of Peterhead up for transfer and bought. All the patching and all the switching does not produce a plausible vehicle that can be offered honestly for sale to the people of Scotland or to people in any other part of the United Kingdom. There are too many ambiguities, confusions and internal flaws for the Bill to carry any real conviction.
  The Government are not succeeding in convincing Scotland that its hostility to a measure that offers it nothing should be abated. Tories that I talk to in Scotland see it as driving the privatisation obsession past the edge of reason. The Government are taking a great public utility and turning it into a fragmented private monopoly, but still into a monopoly. It is asset stripping on a grand scale. It is not some sort of mean folly, but massive irresponsibility by the Government. They should think again.
  In one of his early press statements the Secretary of State for Energy described the Bill as evolutionary. I think that that means that it has not been thought through properly and he knows that he will have to come back to the House with many amendments to try to get it creaking in some sort of unsatisfactory way. We want none of it, and we shall vote accordingly.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I reside in the constituency of Glasgow, Govan and welcome the news given to the House by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I am a fairly typical constituent and I have no doubt that all the other constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will be as appalled as I

  807
  am at the disgraceful and scornful way in which he clearly regards his duties in the House on behalf of his constituents. [Interruption.]
  The Labour party has presented a wholly bogus argument about the need for separate Scottish legislation. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland clearly showed the case against that. It would be absurd to have two Bills, each with more than 100 clauses, when about 98 of those clauses would have been identical in both pieces of legislation. Some of the five or six separate Scottish clauses are simply technical.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made a great deal of his allegation that there would be an absence of control by consumers in the new privatised undertakings. Of course, that is a good argument for him to become a shareholder, because with other shareholders he could exercise his power, if he thought it necessary, to remove the board of directors of the privatised company. He could do that if he and other shareholders were dissatisfied with the board's performance.
  In the short time available to me, I should like to make two points. First, we are clearly transferring financial control from the centre to Scotland. The Opposition have not appreciated that. Of course the Scottish Office is the present sponsoring Department for the two boards, but in any nationalised industry, financial control ultimately rests with the Treasury in London. We are now moving towards control being exercised by the boards located in Scotland. A board will be able to make its own investment decisions unaffected by the necessary constraints that the Treasury under any Government must impose for its own reasons. That is true, even under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong commercial argument. How does he account for the fact that Winston Churchill, when he was Prime Minister, invited one of my illustrious predecessors, Tom Johnston, to set up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?
  Mr. Stewart: I am confused about what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. It is an advantage to have separate boards in Scotland and for the Scottish Office to have an operational overview, but the fundamental point remains that financial control of the electricity industry, as is the case with any other nationalised industry, ultimately derives from the Treasury, and the removal of such control will be a major benefit for those who are trying to run the industry.
  My second point is that, since 1979, private shareholding in Scotland has doubled. That is a major achievement and an advance in giving people a stake in industries and businesses, but shareholding in Scotland is at a lower level than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Surely this is a major opportunity for Scots—for all practical purposes, every Scot is an individual customer of one or other board—to take a real stake in a major Scottish industry.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has said that there is not enough money in Scotland to take a major stake in industry. He should walk around Charlotte square in his constituency and count the assets of financial institutions such as pension funds and life funds; he will then agree that a massive amount of
  808
  money is controlled there. I hope that a proportion of it will also go into the new shareholding of the Scottish boards.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will make the share offer favourable. I hope also that he will realise that this is an opportunity to make ownership by the people a reality, not the myth that it is under nationalisation. We hear a great deal from Opposition Members about ownership by the people. They equate ownership by the state with ownership by individual people. It is a myth. The individual has no control over a nationalised industry. Shareholding gives people a real stake.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden spoke about the timing of the sale of the new companies. I hope that the Scottish companies will be privatised, if not immediately, which would be ideal, then as quickly as possible. Let us try to take the lead in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed that there are debt matters and so on to be sorted out. Let that be done quickly, and let Scotland take the lead. This is an opportunity for a major expansion of private enterprise in Scotland and for Scots to have a real stake in a most important industry.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be sensible if I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has announced that, from 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock, the ten-minute limit on speeches will apply.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Despite what the Secretary of State says about competition within the proposed privatised industry, we are to turn a public monopoly into a private monopoly. The consumer will have no choice—there is no argument about it; the point was explored on the Floor of the House yesterday and this afternoon—just as he has no choice in the British gas industry.
  One aspect of this privatisation makes it different from any other privatisation that has taken place under this Government. The Secretary of State criticised the people who work within the industry. He implied that the industry is not producing as it should and that, under privatisation, it could be dramatically improved. He ignored the fact that it is one of the safest and most efficient electricity supply industries within the developed world. If it had not been for recent price increases, the industry would be providing electricity cheaper than anywhere else in western Europe—certainly cheaper than in the United States or Japan.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy and I had an exchange on nuclear power. The central issue is the nuclear dilemma that the Government face. It is not a matter of whether one is in favour of or against nuclear power. Whatever the policy, we are to have some nuclear power into the next century. Under the Government's proposals, how is nuclear power to be dealt with and priced? There is no argument. When challenged, the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to respond to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on the cost and control of nuclear power.
  With this Bill, the Secretary of State will put a fence around nuclear power. It will clearly state that it is

  809
  different and will be dealt with and priced differently. Four PWRs are promised by the end of the century. There is also Sizewell B. We shall be faced with the decommissioning of AGRs and Magnox stations, which will cost several billion pounds. We must consider the tiny Calder Hall experiment, which is being decommissioned at the moment, and the problems that it is creating. What will happen when larger AGRs must be decommissioned in the foreseeable future? What about the cost of that?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to Mr. Donald Miller and his trenchant remarks about the saleability of the industry if the cost of nuclear power is not removed from the privatisation. If we were to approach Lord Marshall, we would get a similar argument.
  Nobody is more enthusiastic about nuclear power than Lord Marshall.
  Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman can say that again.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman says that I can say that again.
  Lord Marshall's enthusiasm will be tempered when he is answerable to private shareholders, who will ask, "Who will pay for the new power stations and for the present decommissioning?" The Sizewell B inquiry lasted for about four years. The inspector eventually said that, on balance, he thought that nuclear power would be cheaper than coal. What would he say today? The Bill strips away the protection that nuclear power has had in this country over recent years and exposes the fact that, compared with the cost of fossil fuels—coal and oil—nobody argues that nuclear power is cheap. That is the reality we face, but what does the privatised industry, which will be answerable to its shareholders, say about that? It says that it exists to make profits.
  That industry will want to use the cheapest coal available. My hon. Friends will be aware that imported cheap coal will be one of the priorities for the privatised industry. Will the British public allow the nuclear part of the industry to be taken out of the Bill, put on one side and completely protected from natural market forces? If that happens, the cost will be borne by the British taxpayer, but not by the shareholders of the privatised companies. They will be excluded. We must face that.
  Last week there was an excellent article in the Spectator by Jonathan Davis who spelt out clearly what will happen. He said:
  "Gone, with the stroke of a Parly draftsman's pen",
  is the previous support for nuclear power. The article continues:
  "Although it does not spell out the message in so many words, Mr. Parkinson's Bill effectively marks the end of that particular hoary game. The prices of oil and coal, nuclear's fossil fuel competitors, have fallen to their lowest level in real terms for many years, and are likely to languish there for some time. In these conditions, even the PWR, the American-designed pressurised water reactor on which so many of the British industry's hopes now rest, cannot expect to compete with coal. No private sector utility would dream of building one in the present climate."
  Given that the Government have supported nuclear power, have pushed it down our throats and have used every means possible to encourage its development, we now face an extraordinary situation.
  810
  I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that, in an economy which uses a mixed-fuel input —coal, oil, nuclear power, and alternative sources—for our electricity supply, the way in which to deal with that industry, upon which everyone depends for light, food, fuel and work, can only be through public control. That is in the best interests of the consumer.
  To take nuclear power out of public control is extremely dangerous. The British people want it kept under firm control. I understand that there is a nuclear power station on the edge of the area that was recently hit by an earthquake in the Soviet Union. Fortunately for everyone concerned, it was not damaged; I am sure that we are all extremely thankful for that.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It has been shut down.
  Mr. Orme: Yes, that is correct.
  The British public need to recognise that this Government, or any Government, will give them proper protection. The industry must be answerable to Ministers and, through them, to Parliament. In that way we can discuss it.
  Given that the Bill proposes a separate unit responsible for nuclear power and that it is to be dealt with in a special way, will the Minister give an undertaking that public accountability, through the parliamentary process, will remain? If it does not, our people will realise that they cannot support the Bill.
  The Bill contains a nuclear dilemma, which is unique in comparison to any other development. When the Bill is in Committee, we must explore in detail not just the costs, but the overall management policy for the industry.
  It is absolutely criminal that a well-run economic industry, which has produced what the nation needs, should now be broken up purely in the cause of profit. It has nothing to do with competition or improvements in the industry. When we have had an opportunity to debate this matter further, and when the argument is taken out to the public I believe that they will begin to see through the Bill and will discover that it is not in their interests.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. David Harris: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments now that the ten-minute speech rule is in play. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I support the Bill. My remarks about a particular aspect of it should not be taken as meaning that I intend to oppose the Bill. I am in favour of its general principles.
  I wish to concentrate on a matter of acute importance to one area of my constituency and I believe that it is important to all constituents in rural areas. I believe that parity of charges between comparable consumers throughout a company's area should be written into the Bill.
  My particular interest in this matter stems from the injustice that is suffered by my constituents who live on the Isles of Scilly. For 31 years the Isles of Scilly have had to pay the highest tariff for electricity in the United Kingdom. That stems from the simple fact that, until next year, they must rely on the oil-fired power station on St. Mary's. In April next year all that will change when the submarine cables, which have been laid to the Isles of Scilly, begin to operate. Then, the Isles of Scilly will be connected to the national grid.

  811
  Those cables are the result of a long campaign in which I have played a part, but which has been spearheaded by the islanders. I should like to pay tribute to three islanders, Colin Daly, John Poat and Tony Dingley. They are the officers of the Isles of Scilly electricity tariff parity action group.
  They have won the battle to connect the Isles of Scilly to the mainland grid and they have won the argument for parity between the tariff paid by the islands and the tariff charged by the South Western electricity board. They now fear, however, that that parity might be snatched from them as a result of privatisation. I trust and believe that the Minister of State will assure me that that is not so. I believe that one of the provisions of the European regional development fund grant, which was given for laying the cables, is that parity should not be taken away once it is given. I do not believe that the islanders have anything to fear on that score.
  Let me draw attention, however, to clause 3(2) which relates to the provisions for Scotland. It gives, as in so many cases, special and privileged treatment to Scotland. That clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State can make an order under which tariffs shall not distinguish, directly or indirectly, between different parts of the area covered by that order. The Isles of Scilly would certainly like such a provision written into the Bill—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Harris: I cannot give way; I have only 10 minutes.
  My constituents would certainly like such a provision.
  I have been involved in detailed correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my hon. Friend the Minister of State on these points while the Bill has been in preparation. I asked my right hon. Friend on 4 July whether he would give an assurance
  "that the new privatised electricity companies will have parity of charges within their areas, so that, for example, there will be no disadvantage to consumers on the Isles of Scilly in my constituency or, indeed, consumers who live in rural as opposed to urban areas within that company's supply system".
  I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend replied:
  "We are extremely conscious of the anxiety that is felt in areas such as the Scilly Isles and the south-west. We recognise that it is a serious problem. We are sure that, when we make our proposals, my hon. Friend will be happy with them."—[Official Report, 4 July 1988; Vol. 136, c. 713.]
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make my happiness complete and give me the assurances that I seek on this important matter.
  At present, my constituents on the Isle of Scilly pay 27 per cent. more for their electricity than the rest of the consumers served by the South Western electricity board. Those with businesses and block tariffs pay 50 per cent. more than those on the mainland. That injustice will be corrected when the cable comes into play, and I hope that this parity will not be snatched away.
  This is a point of much wider application than merely to my constituents on the Isles of Scilly. I heartily agree with the Select Committee on Energy; which states:
  "We do not think rural customers should be charged more per kilowatt hour consumed than people living in towns".
  It is a sad reflection on the Opposition that they have not seized on that point—[Interruption.] At least, they have not done so in this debate. But it is an important point, about which I want a reassurance from the Minister.
  I hope that this fear will not be realised. I appreciate that the legislation on this wider point will be exactly the
  812
  same as the legislation that is now in place. I want something written into the Bill to ensure that there is no discrimination against those who live in rural areas as opposed to those who live in towns, and I confidently expect an assurance from my hon. Friend that the needs of my constituents in the Isles of Scilly will be met.
  6.13 pm
  Dr. David Owen: Electricity generation, unlike water, is not a natural monopoly, and there is no reason why there should not be genuine competition and private generating companies. Indeed, there would be advantages in that.
  The problem with this legislation is that part of the generation of electricity in this country is nuclear. How we should deal with the nuclear power industry raises quite separate questions. At this stage, the Government's intentions, if not the Bill, do not match the genuine public anxieties aroused in this respect.
  Two generating companies for England and Wales are not enough. I strongly challenge the idea of including nuclear power in the National Power company, with about 70 per cent. of present CEGB assets. The Scottish precedent should be followed in England and Wales, and there should be a separate nuclear generation company. That would provide much greater transparency. and the true nuclear costs would be easily identified.
  The nuclear generating companies should not be taken to the market and privatised at this stage unless one of two solutions is adopted. The first is Government involvement, probably through the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in the nuclear generation companies. Initially, that would involve a majority interest in the companies—one in Scotland and one in England and Wales. If the Government reject that, the other option is to keep the nuclear generation companies as franchise companies that construct and run nuclear plants, but the ownership of the nuclear plant and all the rest of the material for storage that is not with BNFL would be owned by the Atomic Energy Authority.
  The Government will have great difficulty in floating the nuclear generating company in Scotland. What Mr. Miller has said about that is true. National Power, the big company in England and Wales, will also be difficult to float. The market will be far more sceptical about the true economic costs of nuclear generation.
  On environmental grounds, one of the advantages of this legislation and the impetus from it is that we are now beginning to discover the true cost of nuclear generation. I suspect that not a single hon. Member believes that we shall in our lifetime again hear nuclear generation justified on economic or commercial grounds. Yet when one thinks of the continual lies that have been told by the CEGB about the costs of electricity generation, I cannot understand how anyone can defend the status quo. I know of no public body that has distorted the truth over decades more than the CEGB. I experienced that in my own constituency when the board wanted to put an oil-fired power station at Millbrook on the Tamar estuary. The board's "facts" were shown to be incorrect, again and again.
  I have no real confidence, either, in the continuation of the existing system of electricity supply. It was vital that the Secretary of State won the battle with Lord Marshall for the separation of the grid from the generation of

  813
  power, but the Secretary of State was wrong to create a company for transmission which was wholly in private hands. There is a public interest in transmission and I would have preferred the company to be publicly held. However, I must admit that a powerful argument against that can be adduced. Successive Governments have interfered in the pricing of electricity and overridden the market. The last Labour Government, of which I was a member—I take my share of collective responsibility for this—caused a massive increase in electricity charges, but that Government were not the only sinners; Conservative Governments have also used prices as a means of raising revenue from the country.
  There is something to be said for the grid being taken out of Government control, but the problem of leaving it to the 12 supply companies is that there may be collusion between them over their pricing mechanisms. That is why even a 10 per cent. public stake in the transmission company would be an adequate safeguard against collusion. The Government should examine that carefully and consider either a Treasury or an Atomic Energy Authority involvement. Either way, the public interest should be reflected by an involvement in the transmission company. That would go a long way to alleviate anxieties about the dangers of the solution that the Government have adopted. There would be no objection in principle to such a move, and I recommend it to the Secretary of State.
  The other advantage of taking the Government out of electricity generation in its widest sense is that they can then start to do what successive Governments have failed to do—apply stringent environmental standards to it. Those standards must be applied, first, to the nuclear generation element and, secondly, to the coal-fired and oil-fired generation element. This country has been a massive polluter in terms of sulphur emissions and many people do not yet believe that the environmental standards in nuclear generation are sufficiently tough. If the Government are outside the system, adding those costs to the industry, on the basis of "the polluter pays", that will add to the overall cost of generation, but we will then have a clear view of the exact costs of generation.
  The real criticism of the Government is that they have gone against their own basic principles. They have not been prepared to trust the market or commercial judgment and they have rigged the market in favour of nuclear power. If nuclear power is as uneconomic as I suspect most people now believe it to be, the only case for providing nuclear power is strategic. We might not wish to be totally dependent on fossil fuels, but we have not yet built up sufficient alternative sources, through wind power, wave power or, as I should far prefer, barriers. There is far more economic sense in heavy initial capital investment in such projects as the Severn barrier and I hope that they will come through on economic grounds.
  However, if we decide, for strategic purposes, that we do not want to be totally dependent on fossil fuels, we should not believe that the only option is nuclear power. The Government also have the option of backing barrage power. We need to hear about that. Let us have a little less talk about a preserved nuclear element. Some of us would like a preserved barrage element. We must bear that in mind.
  814
  There is then the question of how we deal with a strategic element. If the Government decide that they need diversity—I do not deny any Government that power since it is a prudent power to hold—it should be justified in this House on every occasion. The Minister should come to the House for separate authority for a nuclear power station to be built, if the Government believe that there is a strategic need, and justify that decision against commercial costings and market forces. Such an installation should not be put entirely within the private sector. It would be better to put it under the overall authority of the Atomic Energy Authority, with its construction and running franchised to commercial companies.
  Time is short, and I do not wish to detain the House. We are not opposed in principle to the Bill. We see its merits, but we do not believe that it is yet right, particularly in respect of the nuclear and grid aspects. There should be a greater element of public interest in the decision-making, albeit perhaps in a commercial undertaking. We hear a great deal from the Government about public-private partnerships for the inner city. Why cannot there be public-private partnership for this most important strategic element, the generation of electricity? We have nothing against the structure of the Bill because it allows for three or more generating companies in England and Wales and would thus allow for nuclear generation. There would be no need to privatise nuclear generation and we would have an evolutionary approach to this complex subject that might command a surprising consensus throughout the country.
  We shall judge the Bill in that spirit. I hope that it will not be yet more legislation in which the Government resist any fundamental amendment. The Select Committee has already seriously criticised the provisions and the House has the right to influence the legislation, for the good. I hope that the Secretary of State will not close his mind to some significant amendments along the lines that I have suggested.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is a rare privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I agree with a great deal of what he said. The House should accept his comments, which have been made in a forthright way.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the electricity supply industry has suffered, as have many nationalised industries, from a combination of Government interference, poor accountability and a lack of market discipline. That has led to inefficient investment decisions being taken, for which the customer has had to pay. This Bill is driven by the needs of customers; we must thank the Secretary of State for underlining that fact when drafting the Bill.
  There are three essential benefits to the customer. First, there will be competition in generation. As that generation accounts for some 80 per cent. of the price of electricity, any competition introduced at this level must exert a downward pressure on prices.
  Secondly, for the first time in this industry, proper regulation will ensure that the benefits from competition will be passed down to customers.
  Thirdly, the consumer will be given a new legal status with legal rights and safeguards that will ensure a better service.

  815
  While I was researching for this debate, I came across an article written by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). He was here a moment ago, but has now disappeared. I was pleased to see him return today after having disappeared in high dudgeon last night. The problem was that he did not have time to say everything that he wanted to say. Perhaps I might help him. He wrote in the Liberal News in October of last year:
  "It is impossible to defend the status quo in the electricity industry. The CEGB has become a centralised monopoly which is closed, secretive and accountable to no-one. The economics of generation and conservation are neither being properly examined nor subjected to market forces."
  The title of the article was
  "Why I shall be buying electricity shares."
  I could not put it better myself. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has written. I hope that he will come back to make a further contribution tonight.
  We have heard from Labour Members more peddling of the myths and misrepresentations that surround the industry. They would have us believe that the electricity supply industry, under its present organisation, has done the best possible job over the past 30 years. They tell us that there is no alternative to a monopoly and to a vertically integrated generation and distribution system and they claim that it gives the best deal to customers. There is nothing to suggest that an industry under national ownership, such as we have had for many years, will keep a downward pressure on prices.
  In the years between February 1974 and May 1979, the average annual increase in electricity prices was 22 per cent., a total of 180 per cent. in that period. To tell us that the present nationalised system will give us the best deal is totally unfounded.
  Opposition Members tell us that the management of the present system cannot he better. Why, then, does it take 18 years to construct an AGR station? How can we justify a pricing structure of the bulk supply tariff which has led to increased prices to customers? The Energy Act 1983 was designed to open up competition in the industry. It has been a total failure because the percentage of independent generation has gone down since then. The CEGB has protected its monopoly by redefining those "unavoidable costs". In other words, it has upped the fixed price content, which has increased from 1 per cent. in 1983 to about 30 per cent. today. That means that no independent generator can get into the market.
  Then, of course, there is the mystique about nuclear power. I find it strange that, at the Sizewell inquiry, the CEGB told us that nuclear power was cheaper than coal. Now, at the Hinkley C inquiry, it appears that that is not correct and that there has been a 180 deg turnaround in that period. I wonder whether that is simply to muddy the water and sway public opinion about privatisation or whether it is a destabilising ploy for the contract negotiations that it is presently undertaking with the area boards.
  As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, for the first time nuclear costs will be exposed to scrutiny. They will be clearly identifiable, as they never have been before. It is not true, however, that nuclear power is intrinsically expensive. We must look to better management to reduce costs within the industry. Schedule 12 will bring into the clear light of day the costs of waste, reprocessing and disposal. Any grants will require parliamentary scrutiny
  816
  and approval. That is hardly the way to keep information from the public. It is hardly the way to fudge the nuclear issue.
  There has always been a nuclear cost component to the CEGB's electricity prices. The cost or levy would continue in future irrespective of whether the industry was privatised, and the so-called nuclear tax is not a new tax. Had the industry continued under the present organisation, the levy would be part of the cost component.
  The essential questions are, first, who is paying for the back-end cost of nuclear generation? Secondly, who is paying for future unforeseen costs? Thirdly, who covers the cost risk for new nuclear station construction? The consumer has already paid for the back-end costs. I understand that about £3 billion is already in the kitty for the decommissioning of the Magnox stations and to help with the decommissioning of the AGRs. The Government state categorically in the Bill that they will set aside between £1 billion and £2·5 billion to meet unforeseen costs. For the first time, construction risks for new stations will have three-pronged support, from the taxpayer, the consumer through the nuclear levy, and the shareholders.
  Nuclear generation is essential from a strategic point of view. Without it, the lights would have gone out during the coal strike and the oil price hike. It is essential for other reasons as well. With Third-world development, there is a tendency to generate electricity from fossil fuels. That technology is easier for Third-world countries to adapt. If we in the developed countries put pressure on fossil fuels, we either price Third-world countries out of generating electricity altogether or drive them to nuclear generation, which we might not want.
  There are environmental considerations which, for the first time, begin to make nuclear generation much more attractive than CO2-emitting fossil fuel power stations. Further, the world energy market is shifting towards electricity. Between 1970 and 1984, energy usage overall increased by only 1 per cent. whereas electricity usage increased by 36 per cent. Surely this means that nuclear-generated electricity will move more into its own, and diversity of generation gives balance and security of price and supply.
  Nuclear generation is important, but it is not the overriding consideration in the Bill. We heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that prices would automatically increase with privatisation, and Opposition Members made light of the fact that new generating capacity is coming forward. We are told that about 20 major companies are making serious approaches to area boards, but I shall give just two specific examples. In the Eastern Electricity region, which covers my constituency, there are five significant new plant proposals, three of which are close to determination. These are combined cycle gas turbine plants of 500 MW capacity, which will be helpful in the further development of North sea gas resources and new fields. In the east midlands area, British Coal is already negotiating with the area board to build fluid gas desulphurisation plants at the pit heads. These plants will produce electricity at a lower price than some of the medium-sized coal stations. The price of coal is already beginning to come down.
  The key to the Bill is competition. We must introduce a third force into generation, and the Government must ensure that, in the critical period of negotiation of

  817
  contracts, the CEGB, with its duopoly inheritance, does not tie up the market and prevent new generators from entering it.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not propose to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).
  It seems that the argument in favour of having two Bills, and not the one that is before us, has been advanced during the debate. We seem to have been talking about two Bills. Arguments that have been adduced on behalf of England and Wales have had little bearing on Scotland. This afternoon, the Secretary of State talked about the Scottish coal industry and its relationship to the privatisation of electricity, but before referring to his remarks I shall draw the attention of the House to what was said by Mr. Donald Miller, the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board, in answer to questions put to him by members of the Select Committee on Energy.
  On 23 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) raised the issue of the relationship of the SSEB to British Coal, and Mr. Miller's reply to question 555 was illuminating:
  "First of all, we cannot be in the business of conniving with British Coal to charge the Scottish electricity customer on the basis of dear coal and subsidising other users; that is not what our board is paid for."
  I am sure that his words were carefully chosen. He has said that he is not to "connive" with British Coal. My hon. Friend pressed him further, and he said:
  "On the first point, whether I have discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland the implications of the Scottish coalfield being wiped out: the answer is 'no', because it does not arise, there is no need for it to arise."
  Eight or nine months on, we have news for the Secretary of State and Mr. Miller. We are witnessing the possibility of deep-mined coal being wiped out in Scotland because of a slavish, doctrinaire approach to market forces. I have known Mr. Miller for a long time—I do not like talking about personalities in this way—and previously he was an eminently sensible gentleman. It seems, however, that he is being pushed by privatisation into adopting the following posture and statement— this is the effect of what he said—"I am not conniving with British Coal."
  Let us not say that Mr. Miller should connive, but let us suggest to the Secretary of State that he should show an interest in the future of a vital Scottish industry. Let him do what his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy did recently and visit the site of a vital investment of about £60 million in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), just outside the borders of my constituency. The Under-Secretary visited the Longannet complex, and yesterday, in answer to my question, said:
  "Under privatisation, and with our plans to expand the interconnector between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the coal can produce electricity which can be sold freely into the British system."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 639.]
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked, what are the plans for the interconnector? Is it the Department of Energy, the South of Scotland electricity board or some other body that will facilitate its expansion and strengthening? My constituents
  818
  and those of other hon. Members are entitled to know what will happen to the future of a vital industry in Scotland, and they are entitled to know tonight.
  If the issue is to be left to market forces, and if Mr. Miller is to be allowed to import 2 million to 3 million tonnes of coal, he may be able to proceed without necessarily influencing and jacking up world prices, although I have doubts about that. Lord Marshall of the CEGB could not import 65 million tonnes of coal without having an effect on world prices. It would seem that my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden is correct: the interests of the nation lie in security of supply, not the short-run equilibrium of supply and demand.
  Mr. Miller, who does not now desire to connive with British Coal, had previously to sit down and reach long-term contractural agreements with British Coal to safeguard the supply. If that is not a vital responsibility for people with the national interest of all Scotland and the United Kingdom at heart, I do not know what is.
  I have heard a lot of rubbish about what happened in the miners' strike and how we broke the miners' strike because we had nuclear power. Unfortunately, the breaking of the miners had a lot to do with the public sector. A major reason for the miners being broken in the strike—they were not humiliated, because they preserved their dignity—was the imposition and unification of what was tantamount to a national police force. When it suits them, the Government can misuse the public sector. We are interested in using the public sector for the long-term benefit of the people of this country.
  The Secretary of State defended his new desire to introduce to us his views about perfect competition. We know that there is no such thing as perfect competition in the real world —page 1 of Cairncross taught us that. I notice graduates from St. Andrew's university on the Conservative Benches; I am always willing to educate St. Andrew's graduates.
  Under the Scottish proposals, two companies will own the nuclear sector. That will create a company with 80 per cent. of the assets and 60 per cent. of the generating capacity. How on earth can that be called competition of any magnitude? That is prostituting competition and duopoly. The Secretary of State cannot defend that on the basis of the consumer. However, we are told that the Scottish board will have the magnificent possibility of selling surplus capacity over the wires. There will be no new capacity in Scotland before the year 2000, but the Scottish board can export it, provided that it goes to the market at a price that will bear the costs.
  If the price of the Scottish assets is high, it will be difficult to sell the electricity over the wires. Conversely, that will relate to the low price of the English assets. There is a conundrum. The only way to solve it is to cook the books in pricing terms. We can suggest that here, but that does not mean to say that investors in Charlotte square would be daft enough to be taken in by such action.
  We have heard about the criteria for public or private ownership. I am no slavish adherent to the public sector. The public sector should deliver facilities efficiently. I do not believe in feather-bedding any public sector employee. However, there is duplicity on the Conservative Benches.
  People in the public sector are sick and tired of being praised when there is an emergency in the North sea, on the railways, or in the Soviet Union. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Prime Minister was pleased to say that the public sector would be the first to respond because London

  819
  firemen were to fly out. She was cutting those firemen's facilities, but she had the cheek and audacity to praise them. We have a responsibility to the public sector to ensure that the employees are adequately rewarded.
  Yesterday, the Minister of State, Scottish Office said that the Labour Government brought the organisations into the public sector with one Bill. Unfortunately, he omitted the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The test of private versus public is an extreme test when one is in difficulty. In the dark days of the war, Churchill went to Tom Johnston to argue for the creation of a public sector board for the Highlands. I am not going to quote Tom Johnston. Instead, I will quote Lord Airlie. On 9 June 1943, he said:
  "I believe that what will happen is that in certain areas which are at present supplied by private companies, would-be consumers will be unable to get electricity on account of the fact that they will he unable to afford, after this war, to pay the charges which the private companies have to impose…There is only one way it can be done,"—
  he was talking about the Hydro Board—
  "and that is for the State to do it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 1943; Vol. 127, c. 973, 974.]
  That is what a traditional Tory anxious to preserve the rights of Scotland and the Scottish Highlands said. Today, we see the Tories reneging on Scottish responsibility.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Please forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for jumping in and out of the Chamber so frequently this evening. However, democracy does not prevail only here; it prevails upstairs in the Committee Rooms where many elections have been taking place. For a moment I confess that I wondered whether I had stepped in on what is essentially a Scottish party, with reels and all. As a three quarter Scot who probably draws electricity from the hydro-electric scheme in Scotland when he switches on an electric switch in his house, I think that I am justified in taking part in the debate.
  Mr. John Maxton: How does the hon. Gentleman work that out?
  Mr. Colvin: That is how it works.
  I welcome the Bill because many of my constituents work in the power generation industry. They will also welcome this proposal to denationalise one of Britain's biggest businesses, thus honouring the 1987 Conservative party general election manifesto commitment to privatise more state industries, and to increase share ownership for employees and the public at large. Almost one in five of the adult population now own shares directly and more than 1·5 million people own shares in the companies for which they work.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has shown considerable ingenuity in devising the corporate structure for the electricity industry following privatisation. He and the merchant banks that will advise him will have to show great ingenuity in devising schemes to ensure that shares in the 15 electricity companies with £27 billion-worth of assets are spread as widely as possible. There is probably scope there for creating another 1 million shareholders.
  Southern Electricity, my local area distribution board, shares my welcome for the Bill. The board favours becoming a publicly owned company believing, in the words of its chairman, Mr. Duncan Ross, that it can
  820
  "look forward to a more diverse and competitive electricity generation market, in which it can shop around to obtain the best buys for its 2·4 million customers."
  That is the answer to those who say that following privatisation there will be no competition. The distributors will be able to shop around for electricity and that competition would be lost if the Labour party regained office and renationalised the industry as Opposition Members told us that they would yesterday. So much for the Opposition's commitment to repeal clause IV—the nationalisation clause in their constitution. That must be double-talk.
  I represent a very energy-related constituency. It has the largest oil refinery in Europe—the Esso plant at Fawley—which provides fuel for a major power station which stands on an adjacent site. Fawley used to fuel the Marchwood power station further up the Solent. That power station was made redundant a few years ago but the site also houses the Marchwood research laboratory.
  The Bill is doubly welcome to my constituents because the public inquiry into the proposed Fawley B power station has had to be shelved, probably indefinitely. That is proof, if it is needed, that competition has an effect on the industry. When the distributing company-to-be, Southern Electricity, was asked to guarantee that it would buy the energy produced from Fawley B, it refused. Fawley B power station would have cost £1·3 billion and would have produced 1,800 MW a year. Somebody would have had to buy it, and that provides the key to the Bill.
  The Bill shifts the responsibility for ensuring that the juice is there when we turn on the switch in our house from the generating company—the CEGB—to the distributors, and they can shop around. Southern Electricity is considering other sources and because of the trends today and because of research, will find that many smaller power stations are probably better than the mega-power stations that have been built hitherto. Yesterday, we heard hon. Members talk about alternatives such as combined heat and power as more effective ways of making full use of our fossil fuels.
  The Bill is certainly welcome in Romsey and Waterside. It is also welcome to Hampshire ratepayers because it will save them about £1 million, which is the cost of fighting the public inquiry into the proposed power station and jetty.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me for not going through the ritual back-slapping exercise that usually prevails in these debates. I intend to be quite critical on three aspects, which are raised not only in the Bill itself, but by the proposal to develop Fawley B. The first is the question of the environment. The second, is the question of coal imports and the third that of research.
  Earlier this year, the White Paper on privatising the electricity industry made no reference to the privatised electricity companies having to have any concern for the environment—nor does the Bill. I have read the Bill from cover to cover and it has little to say on a subject that has been of increasing public and political concern in recent years. It simply repeats, in schedule 9, the limited objectives of the Electricity Act 1957 on the protection of flora and fauna. It relates only to the natural beauty of the countryside and the physical condition of any buildings of special, architectural or historic interest. That is riot enough. The Bill does not incorporate other much wider matters of environmental concern that have grown up over the years, such as emissions from power stations,

  821
  atmospheric pollution, the management of radioactive waste and, of course, other audible and visual pollution of the environment.
  I accept that those matters are covered, in part, by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and, of course, by the recent European Community agreement which implements the large plant directive to reduce emissions from power stations. However, I still believe that the Bill should specifically contain broader environmental provisions and I am sure that in Committee, additional clauses on the environment will be suggested.
  My second point concerns coal. The Fawley B proposal would necessitate the building of a jetty for bringing in coal. That coal would not necessarily come from abroad, but might come round the coast. That would require substantial investment, so once the facility was built, there would be strong economic incentives to maximise its use. That applies to coal jetties generally. It is clear from what Lord Marshall and British Coal have said that the importation of foreign coal is an important option in keeping our coal industry competitive. Opposition Members who represent constituencies with coal interests commented on that in considerable depth yesterday.
  I want to point out that it would be wholly wrong to proceed with the Fawley jetty—or any other facility for importing coal—without being certain that the inland infrastructure is there for the movement of that coal to other power stations inland, and that it is adequate. In the case of Waterside, where we fought a public inquiry on the proposal for moving oil from Wych Farm in Dorset to Fawley for processing, was refused simply because the railway line was inadequate. The movement of coal, lime, gypsum and all other power station products, is equally impractical because it would require many more trains than the oil proposal. That is a lesson that we must take on board.
  My third point concerns research. Section 7 of the Electricity Act 1957—which is due to be repealed in its entirety by the Bill—sets out the mandatory and permissive frameworks that have led to the existing high level of research work in the electricity supply industry. The Berkeley, Marchwood and Leatherhead research laboratories spent £224 million in the last financial year, which has helped our electricity industry to lead the world in so many areas.
  What do the Government propose as an adequate replacement for section 7 of the 1957 Act? No framework is provided under the Bill. It has been for the CEGB to decide, following discussions with the Department of Energy, that, subject to the enactment of the Bill, Berkeley nuclear laboratories and the Central Electricity research laboratory—except for the part of the CERL site engaged in transmission-related work—will be owned by the new National Power company—big G. Marchwood engineering laboratories, in my constituency, will be owned by the new Power Generation company—little G. That part of the CERL site at Leatherhead that is already engaged in transmission work will be owned by the new National Grid company.
  I question whether the allocation of these research facilities is the right one, especially in relation to Marchwood where 400 to 450 people work, mainly in nuclear power research—on which they spend 60 per cent.
  822
  to 80 per cent. of their time—and which will be allocated to little G, when it should be to big G. This reorganisation must be considered again because Marchwood faces closure and the loss of 450 jobs. Those research facilities there at present, which are non-nuclear, will probably be moved to Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, and that could sound the death knell for Marchwood.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I must be fair to other hon. Members and the hon. Gentleman has had a little more than the time allocated.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall try not to speak for the whole time that is allocated, although I should have very much liked to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I am very pleased that, unlike most of his colleagues, he has realised that the electricity industry has been responsible for significant achievements, and it was good to see some of his hon. Friends wince when he expressed that view. It is not a view that would have been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) who, in an aside, summed up the approach of Conservative Members when he talked about getting £20 billion in the kitty to fight the next election. That is what the Bill is about.
  The Secretary of State, who is rather more polished and urbane, would not say that, but he deliberately, or negligently, misled the House yesterday when he said that the Bill would be achieving something enormously important in breaking new ground and giving the suppliers the duty to supply electricity. He suggested that that goes further than any responsibility placed on the public sector. He told us about that part, but he did not tell the House—and perhaps the Minister of State can explain—that the absolute promise that the Secretary of State gave to the House yesterday about the duty to supply seems to be remarkably hedged about in clauses 15 and 16.
  If any supplier does not wish to fulfil the terms of clause 3, to which the Secretary of State was referring, clauses 15 and 16 seem to give it every possible opportunity to evade that mythical responsibility. The Secretary of State may not have read the Bill. I hope that he has an enjoyable Christmas, although he may not like the idea of what is to come. He will still be Secretary of State in January and February during the Committee Stage, and he and his Ministers will have to do much more homework than appeared to have been done yesterday.
  That was not the only point on which the Secretary of State was somewhat misleading. He implied that he was negotiating with the trade unions and that they were quite happy to talk to him about the distribution of shares. As far as I know, the trade unions have had no contact with him at all. They are probably quite interested in the allocation of shares, but they see it as peripheral compared to the future of an industry that is so important to their members and the country.
  It is fashionable for Conservative Members to criticise the industry. We should remember that many of them represent rural constituencies and they should understand that two enormously important developments assisted rural Britain in the 1940s and subsequently. One was the Agriculture Act 1947 which brought rural areas a share in urban prosperity—a Labour Government achievement—

  823
  and the other was the nationalisation of the electricity industry, which brought light and power to areas of Britain that would not otherwise have been able to afford them. If the decision were left to the private sector now, I doubt whether it would find some of the areas represented by Conservative Members particularly attractive as markets.
  In addition to the future of the rural areas, I am concerned about conservation. The Bill is woefully inadequate in its provision for conservation and the environment. The Government have merely lifted the appropriate part of an Act of 1957, but the fact that throughout their period in office they have ignored its requirements does not give us much hope that the provision will prove satisfactory. The fact that the Nature Conservancy Council has not been consulted and that there is no structure for consultation with public agencies seems to me a woeful omission. The conservation lobby fears that the priority afforded to environment issues will be grossly inadequate.
  One begins to wonder about Conservative Members' intelligence in that regard. The other day I did a study of what would happen in Britain if we did not take environmental problems seriously enough, and if the sea level rose. I found grounds for satisfaction. The Government are utterly unconcerned about the environment. They are utterly unworried and remarkably negligent when it comes to support for fluidised bed combustion and so on. They are ignoring anything beyond the next balance sheet and the next election, and history will hold them responsible for the rise in the sea level.
  Unfortunately, 90 per cent. of our low-lying areas are represented by Conservative Members. When the sea level rises as a result of Conservative negligence, it will be interesting to see what those attached to private affluence and to the eradication of the public sector will do. Perhaps they will come squealing for public sector support, and when they do, some of us may point out that the Conservative Government whom they support are responsible. That Government may well be quite prepared to obliterate the research capacity to which the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside referred. I hope that Conservative Members will be consistent enough to say to their constituents, "Build your own sea walls, walk about in your own wellington boots and pay your own electricity bills."
  There is another question that the Minister must answer. The Secretary of State forced quite unnecessarily high electricity price increases last year, on the ground that the CEGB needed to invest £1 billion. But the CEGB was about to do that; it was already budgeted for. I ask the Minister to tell the House, therefore, whether the CEGB will be investing an additional £1,000 million in the current financial year—the money that the Secretary of State compelled it to raise. If the CEGB is not to spend that sum, the House and the country will require an explanation.
  I should declare an interest; I am involved with NACODS, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, and with the National and Local Government Officers Association. Some months ago, I asked a question in the House about potential redundancies. Only in two ways can a profit be made: first by reducing labour costs and second by reducing input costs. I feared that many jobs would go, as Mr. Alex Henney suggested. The Secretary of State gave me an absolute assurance, not only that there would be no
  824
  redundancies but that additional jobs would follow privatisation. Can the Minister confirm that pledge? If the Government have retreated from it, he should let us know now. It will be no consolation for the workers in the industry to be given a few crumbs of shares if they then find that the pressure of ruthless privatisation makes them join the ranks of the unemployed.
  The Secretary of State referred yesterday to imported coal. He clearly has no understanding of the international coal trade, which could not have sustained a sudden switch from domestic to imported coal. He referred to low-sulphur coal. How can the Government talk about low-sulphur coal or high-sulphur coal when we have shown in recent months that they do not even know which country the coal is coming from? That is a serious point. The miners in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) have their coal washed at the Manvers site in my constituency. In the last three months we have produced coal at 81p a gigajoule on average and last week they were producing it at 68p a gigajoule.
  In destroying that achievement, the Government would not merely bring embarrassment and long-term danger to the electricity industry and to the consumer; they would destroy an important part of the potential for British -industrial growth. The damage that they have already inflicted upon high energy users such as United Engineering Steel in my constituency by an unnecessary increase in prices this year shows that a balance of payments deficit of enormous and hitherto unimaginable dimension is of no consequence to them. Those of us who take a longer view would suggest that the achievements that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside has just begun to recognise are about to be sacrificed by a bunch of people whose motivation, like that of the hon. Member for Northfield, is pure greed.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a barrister. His speech yesterday was fluent; it had a certain polish and it went on rather too long. In other words, it was very much the speech of a barrister. Barristers have clients, and I found myself asking just who the hon. Gentleman's clients were. I decided that they were just about every vested interest and every force against progress that is to be found in the industry. The hon. Gentleman's clients are the National Union of Mineworkers, the anti-nuclear lobby, the state corporatists. They are all those who are against the operation of market forces and competition and who recoil with a shudder from the idea of giving the consumer some clout.
  The CEGB has much of which it can be proud, and I acknowledge it. I acknowledge that it has achieved and maintained high technical standards, but it is by no means the creature of perfection that many of its apologists would have us believe. Its record on investment shows that it has over-invested far too often. A look at the way in which its power stations have been constructed and supervised reveals an appalling record.
  Look at the time that it took the CEGB to construct Dungeness B. Originally it planned to build the power station in five years; it took 20. When it put its hands on Hartlepool, the power station there was expected to take six years. It took 18 years. It was not just the AGR power stations that took such a time. The Isle of Grain power

  825
  station was planned to take seven years, but it took 13. Ince B was planned to take five years, but it took 10. In some respects, the CEGB has not served the nation well, although in others I acknowledge that it has.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) spent a great deal of time talking about fat cats. He spat out the words with considerable ferocity and frequency. Looking at him, I was moved to reflect that he had a not inconsiderable waistline himself. Apart from the hon. Member for Clydesdale and the fat cats to whom he referred, there are others. Could it not be that the CEGB is a bit of a fat cat? Could it not be in need of slimming down? Could it not be that it occasionally needs to meet the sharp end of competition? If you will forgive the pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that would do it a power of good.
  This Bill will open the way for many small-scale generating schemes. We shall see many more power and heat schemes. I am convinced that a great number of small gas-generated power stations will open as a direct result of the Bill. Section 5 of the Energy Act 1983 paved the way for such small gas-generated power stations and the like to generate directly into the national grid.
  Unfortunately, that section was not the success that was hoped for. The trouble was that the CEGB was in control of the national grid and it had no desire to see small gas and other generating stations move in on its territory. Things will now be different. Following the Bill, the national grid will be under the control of the distribution companies, which will have an interest in encouraging different sources of supply, in diversifying and in seeing competition brought into the generating industry. That will be a considerable force for good.
  Labour Members from time to time during the debate have mocked the special status that the Government are according nuclear power in the Bill. Power generated through nuclear fission is, and should be, treated as a special case. The cost of constructing nuclear power stations is heavy, but the great advantage is that, once those costs have been incurred, the running costs are comparatively cheap. Quite apart from that, there is the issue of security of supply.
  In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that on several occasions during the past 20 years there had been threats to security of supply. There have been threats to oil and coal supplies to power stations. There has not been the same threat to power supplies from nuclear stations. It is noteworthy that not one Opposition Member has addressed himself to that argument. That shows its force and weight and why it is so important that the Government should have it in mind.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his last sentence.
  Mr. Irvine: The Government's approach to nuclear power is refreshingly pragmatic. They are going forward not with dogma but with pragmatism. In giving nuclear power a special status, they are not showing favouritism but rather indulging in plain good common sense.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  826
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is ill considered spatchcock legislation; notes that electricity supply, as a basic service, properly belongs in the public sector; that the Bill fails to introduce effective competition into the privatised structure in England and Wales and particularly in Scotland, leaving consumers to face higher bills to finance the doubling of company rates of return; further notes the lack of public provision for the strengthening of the electricity interconnector between Scotland and England and the failure to guarantee that the Scottish companies will not be forced to compete to sell electricity to a monopoly buyer at a loss of some tens of millions of pounds, the effective removal of the social clause from the Hydro-Board operations and the failure to appoint a separate Scottish regulator to oversee the distinctive characteristics of the Scottish electricity system, the Government's failure to respond adequately to the Select Committee on Energy's detailed and robust criticisms, and the continued intent to shelter the nuclear industry from competition at the expense of the coal industry; and considers that Scottish consumers risk being denied the full benefits of the development of hydro power and North Sea Gas, the two cheapest and most environmentally sensitive major sources of electricity generation."
  There has been some interest in the use of the word "spatchcock" to describe the Government's proposed legislation. That word was used by the Select Committee on Energy. As all hon. Members will know, it means a chicken that is ill-prepared—slaughtered before its time. The word is derived from the Indian army. I can think of no better word than one used by the Indian Raj to describe what the Scottish Raj is doing to Scotland in the Bill.
  I was prepared for the fact that the Secretary of State for Energy would know little about the Scottish side of the legislation when he opened the debate. He knew so little that he refused point blank to answer questions on the Scottish issue. But I was not prepared for the Secretary of State for Scotland to display a similar level of ignorance. If I interpreted him correctly, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that only about 3 per cent. of the issues involved in the Scottish privatisation were different and separate from those involved in the privatisation in England and Wales. There can be no better testimony to the Secretary of State's total ignorance of the measure that he is co-sponsoring through the House.
  The Scottish and English privatisations are like chalk and cheese. The issues involved in the vertical integration of the Scottish electricity industry and its privatisation are separate and distinct from the issues involved in the different structure south of the border. Such remarks show why, according to the MORI poll published last Friday, 61 per cent. are now dissatisfied with the Secretary of State's performance. That is only 1 per cent. more than the dissatisfaction accorded to the Leader of the Opposition. The Secretary of State is now chasing hard on the heels of the Prime Minister to be the most unpopular political figure in Scotland.
  Why are the Scottish public so dissatisfied with the Secretary of State's performance? The major reason is that he persists in imposing policies which have no popular support in Scotland. The Bill is an excellent illustration of that. I defy any Tory Member to tell me where, in Scottish local election results, general election results or opinion polls, there is any sign of convincing support for electricity privatisation in Scotland.
  When that point is pursued with the Secretary of State, he says that the companies support privatisation. I can think of nothing more pathetic than being reduced to claiming the support of people whom he appoints or whose future he controls. That displays the Tory party's

  827
  attitude to Scotland. On so many issues, the Tory party has appointed place people in a failed attempt to reinforce its support in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State is unpopular because of the contempt with which he allows Scottish business to be treated. The distinctive nature of the Scottish electricity industry was recognised by the Select Committee on Energy. In the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the Energy Select Committee went into the Bill's Scottish aspect, although it recognised that it could not do the thorough job or do the matter the justice that a Scottish Affairs Select Committee would have done. Now we find that there is to be no Scottish Bill, no Scottish debate and no Scottish Standing Committee, all because the Government lack the troops to man their Scottish Benches. We see another perfect illustration of that this evening.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Salmond: No. I am restricted to 10 minutes, so I am not prepared to take information from the hon. Gentleman who has just arrived.
  The Government are trying to disguise their lack of a Scottish mandate and to call the English battalions to their rescue by keeping the two Bills together.
  The Minister of State, who has just arrived, will remember that one reason why, according to the MORI poll, 61 per cent. were dissatisfied with the Secretary of State was due to the Government's lack of backbone in defending Scottish interests. It was incredible to hear the argument for a separate Scottish regulator described as "foolish" by the Secretary of State earlier. The Select Committee on Energy, which has a majority of English Back Benchers, concluded that the distinctive nature of the Scottish electricity system justified a separate Scottish regulator. There can he no better illustration of the lack of backbone of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is unwilling to demand for Scotland even that which was recommended by a majority of English Tory Back Benchers.
  There are many reasons for opposing the Bill, and many are detailed in the amendment. Because of the shortage of time, I shall concentrate on two of them. First, inevitably, electricity privatisation in Scotland will result in higher prices. There is an argument on the English and Welsh legislation. On one side it is argued that higher rates of return and increased costs through separating the generators from the grid will result in higher prices. On the other side it is argued that pressure and competition in generation will bring prices down. That is an argument, although it is one in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has the initiative over the Secretary of State for Energy.
  In Scotland there is no argument. There is no competition in the Scottish measure and no downward pressure on prices. Rather than relying on the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, we should turn to people who know about the industry. The chairmen of the two companies in Scotland that are to be privatised gave evidence to the Select Committee. Mr. Joughin, the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board, was not an unimpressive witness but when pressed as to whether competition would be promoted by the Scottish measures, he was unable to give an answer.
  828
  The succession of questions ran as follows: he was asked what a consumer was to do when he was dissatisfied with the privatised Hydro Board's cost of electricity. He said:
  "He can come to the Annual General Meeting and chase us."
  I then asked him:
  "Say he is not a shareholder, but just a customer?"
  Mr. Joughin replied:
  "I would hope he would soon become a shareholder, the same as you would in any other company in which you wanted to take a challenging interest."
  He was then asked:
  "You are surely not saying that the customers who are not shareholders will not be uppermost in your mind when you move into the private sector?"
  Mr. Joughin replied:
  "Customers will, as they are now, be uppermost in our minds, yes."
  He was then asked:
  "However, they will not be able to do anything about it if your performance is not very good'?"
  Mr. Joughin's last word on the subject was:
  "With due respect, Sir, this is not our debate. We are the Management, we have a Government which has said that it wishes to privatise, and it is our responsibility to be sure that we make the best decisions possible to enable that privatisation to be as effective as we can for our consumers."
  In the final analysis, when asked to explain where the competition was in the Scottish measures, the best that the chairman of the Hydro Board could say was, "We are doing what we are telt." In that, he was similar to the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board who completely destroyed the argument that there was competition in supplying to industrial consumers in Scotland when he told the Select Committee:
  "the nuclear company will own, as I have indicated, 80 per cent. of the generation assets, in Scotland and produce 60 per cent. of the electricity, and so a very high degree of co-operation is required between the partners. At the same time, we arc enjoined by the White Paper to compete. That is an unusual situation. To our knowledge, it has no precedent anywhere in the world."
  From both the Hydro Board chairman and the South of Scotland electricity board chairman there is an admission that there is no real competition in the Scottish measures. That is why the Select Committee on Energy concluded that the claims of competition by emulation were "largely meaningless".
  In the absence of competition and downward pressure on prices, it is inevitable that an increase in rates of return— a doubling is estimated by the Hydro Board—will lead to higher prices for Scottish consumers in the private sector.
  There is one area of competition in the Scottish measures, and that is that the two boards will be involved in the cut-throat competition of selling electricity to England and Wales. As yet, we have no absolute guarantee that the English and Welsh distribution companies will not combine to form a monopoly buyer to force down the price at an estimated cost to Scotland of tens of millions of pounds. I am asking for that guarantee now. The one achievement, in competition terms, of the Secretary of State for Scotland is to see that competition between the two Scottish boards forces down costs for consumers in England and Wales. What a triumph for the Secretary of State for Scotland!
  I shall deal with the fallacy of Conservative Members' claims of control in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland refused to say how much of the Scottish private

  829
  sector had disappeared into external ownership during his tenure of office. The estimate from Scottish Business Insider is about two thirds. He also refused to tell us why he did not argue for a Scottish Telecom, Scottish Gas or Scottish Steel.
  When the right hon. and learned Gentleman argues that the two major companies will enliven and bring rebirth to the Scottish private sector, we should remember that it was only a year before the elimination of Britoil as Scotland's major private sector company that the Secretary of State for Scotland, at the opening of its new offices in Glasgow, was saying what an asset it was to Scotland. The claim of the Scottish Conservatives that there is something distinctly Scottish in the measures they are suggesting is as bogusly Scottish as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) dressed in his latest kilt.V
  I want to turn—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his last sentence.
  Mr. Salmond: The measure before us betrays the interest of the Scottish people. The enormous generation assets and potential of Scotland in terms of coal, hydro power, and cheap gas are being wasted. We are further than ever from an energy policy for Scotland that would allow those assets to be used for the benefit of Scottish industry and Scottish consumers.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I should like to make a few comments about the transfer of the electricity industry into the private sector and the need to rely upon a variety of generation systems.
  I was struck by the inconsistency of the arguments by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) yesterday and his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) today. Yesterday, we discussed the so-called nuclear levy and we were told that prices would rise if the electricity industry was privatised. Today we were told that Scottish coal is a special case and that the Scottish electricity industry should not be allowed to import coal, despite the fact that it might be cheaper. At the same time, it was suggested that prices would still rise in Scotland. That is the sort of inconsistency that has coloured many of the Opposition's arguments over the past two days.
  I want to concentrate on the reasons why the industry should be moved into the private sector. Yesterday we heard a great deal about the conditions pertaining many decades ago when much of the industry was in the private sector. It was suggested that the problems of the 1920s and 1930s were good reasons for not moving the industry into the private sector. I am afraid that that argument, like so many others put forward by Opposition Members, looks to the past, not to the future.
  I am the first to admit that the creation of the national grid in the 1930s was a good idea. However, I am the last to admit that the nationalisation process that took place after the last war was a good idea. Our generation industry would have been just as efficient, if not more so, with a national grid had we not had that nationalisation measure.
  In the public sector, the solutions to the problems of the electricity industry, like in so many other industries, are of a general nature. Quite often the Treasury decides the
  830
  amount of money that an industry should borrow to fund its investment. In the electricity industry in particular, we can see the effects of that over many decades. Prosperity or the need for the Treasury to spend or save more money has often dictated the investment plans of the industry rather than the needs of the consumer and the needs of the industry itself.
  In the public sector, too little regard is paid to alternative methods of generating electricity. Again, we tend to be blinkered. The fashion may be, perhaps according to the Government of the day or to the philosophy of the chairman running the Central Electricity Generating Board at the time, to go for a nuclear, coal or oil option. Little regard is paid to smaller systems of generating electricity that are becoming more popular abroad, and which I suggest will become more popular in this country once the industry is privatised.
  It is necessary for the electricity industry's long-term interests, and for those of its consumers, for there to be a number of different systems of generating electricity. More specifically, it is important to retain the nuclear option. One can see what happens when there is no variety of generating systems in a country such as France, where, because of high oil prices, they went overboard in terms of nuclear-powered electricity. The French have saddled themselves with a £20 billion debt as a result.
  I was interested in the remarks made yesterday by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), although I did not quite understand his logic. I gather that his suggestion was that, whereas electricity costs in France are higher, that country can still sell electricity to the CEGB at a lower price than that at which it can be produced in this country, so the French Government are subsidising our domestic electricity industry.
  One element of consistency in the debate on the electricity industry is the inconsistency in estimates of the cheapest source of electricity over a long period. Twenty years ago, oil was in vogue and undoubtedly provided the cheapest source. As a result of oil price increases, coal became the cheapest 10 years ago, but two years ago, when oil prices fell, there was doubt as to whether it would not be feasible to generate electricity from oil again. Today, perhaps coal has the slight advantage.
  Throughout all of that, there was the nuclear option as well. Even today it is, in terms of running costs, a cheap way of generating electricity. The drawback is the cost of building nuclear stations. Factors such as interest rates play a large part in decisions on the best way to proceed.
  Another important factor is the decisions made by Governments—specifically Labour Governments—over many years, about the nuclear industry. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) rightly observed that, in the past, Britain's nuclear industry has largely been technology-led, which has often taken us up blind alleys in terms of the cost of Magnox stations and, more specifically, the delays suffered as a result of advanced gas-cooled reactors. Today, I believe that, as a result of our decision to change to pressurised water reactors, there is less likelihood of any kind of nuclear levy being applied in future, based on the experience of other countries running PWR stations rather than on our own experience in respect of Magnox and AGR stations.
  The relationship between electricity generation and the environment is becoming more important. There is a good case to be made for retaining the nuclear option because, with nuclear power, many of the environmental problems

  831
  associated with it were taken into account when its cost was calculated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There remains the cost of shutdowns, clearing the sites, and waste storage. I can understand Opposition Members encouraging me to make that point. What we do not yet know are the full environmental implications of having a generating system that is largely or totally based on coal or other fossil fuels.
  A coal-fired power station, for example, generating 1,800 MW, in the category into which Drax B falls, produces 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and 16,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide annually. That can be overcome by fitting fluid gas desulphurisation devices, but that will add to the costs—which is not taken into account when the equation is done. It does not end there. If one has fluid gas desulphurisation, one must also get rid of the gypsum, which amounts to 500,000 tonnes a year, and of 1 million tonnes of ash annually. None of those factors was taken into account in arriving at the cost of coal-fired, as compared with nuclear, power stations. When such costs are taken into account in future, the so-called nuclear levy may not arise.
  For too long, many people in this country have believed that the best way of running large public utilities such as electricity was by retaining them in the public sector. In an age in which the interests of the consumers and of the environment are of increasing importance, such a view is no longer appropriate. We need to free the industry from the Treasury's purse strings, and to give both industrial users and regional boards freedom of choice. We must allow the industry to rely on a variety of sources of supply for the generation of electricity throughout the country.
  For all those reasons, and because I believe that environmental and consumer interests will be better protected if the electricity industry is in private hands and the regulator in public hands, I welcome the Bill and shall vote for it tonight.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Terry Patchett: I do not propose taking up a great deal of time, as I am anxious to hear the contributions of Conservative Members. This is the second day of debate on the Bill but, as yet, I have heard not one convincing argument from Government Members, including the Secretary of State, for privatising the electricity supply industry. We keep getting a parade of parroting about competition and its benefits to the customer, which, I feel sure, Conservative Members know in their hearts not to be true.
  Private power companies may be forced into making deals with large industrial users, such as car manufacturers, who may threaten to build their own generating plants as part of their bargaining power in negotiating electricity prices. No such tactic is available to the domestic consumer. Where industrial users take advantage of the new situation, the power companies' shareholders will expect them to find their profits from elsewhere—and they can come from no other source than domestic users.
  Much has been said about competition, but there is only likely to be any between the big City corporations, over which of them is prepared to pay more into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's kitty to reap the benefits of the captive market. They are the "fat cats" to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) referred yesterday. They can do so safely, in the knowledge that a great deal of the money that they pay to the
  832
  Chancellor will be returned to them personally by way of promised tax cuts. So those people will win twice on the deal.
  It is ironic that, while the Government appear to advocate competition, they consider it unfair that the nuclear power industry should compete equally with other energy sources, and they insist on its being guaranteed 20 per cent. of the energy market. Not only that, but the Government are prepared to prop up the nuclear industry, given the unknown costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations in the future. The Government leave the nationalised coal industry to fend for itself in its battle against cheap, subsidised foreign coal that is flooding the world now, but which may not be available at a future date, by which time the Government's policies may have annihilated our domestic coal industry.
  The Government are not only deserting our coal industry but openly and actively contributing to its downfall, even to the cynical use of private Bills. The North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and others like it were introduced as private Bills, then openly and avidly supported by the Government payroll vote. The last time that the Killingholme Bill came before the House, there was an open if unofficial Whip on it: the Government had put a two-line Whip on the business that followed it, when they knew that there would be no vote on the matter. The two-line Whip was dropped immediately after the vote had been taken on the private Bill.
  I deem that cynical politics, and would expect it to leave a nasty taste in the mouths of Members of Parliament who believe in the parliamentary procedures of the House. The only reason for supporting that Bill was to allow easy access for cheap imported coal and to decimate our own coal industry, which would have considerable difficulty in competing with cheap imports born of subsidies and cheap labour—even, in some instances, child labour.
  It has been estimated that unrestricted foreign coal imports by privately owned power stations could lead to the loss of 160,000 jobs, of which 65 per cent. would be in the coal industry. That would decimate constituencies such as mine, which are already reeling under high unemployment because of the Government's earlier pit closure programme. The number of collieries is expected to halve. By 1992, British Coal will be reduced to 48 collieries employing 45,000 people and producing between 73 million and 80 million tonnes of coal a year. That forecast is based on coal imports of 40 million tonnes.
  The level of import penetration in the electricity industry will ultimately depend on the relative value of sterling. Nevertheless, there are reasons for expecting a massive increase. For example, the coal division of British Petroleum is understood to have held informal talks in Britain about the possibility of buying Australian coal for power generation. Despite the extra transportation costs, BP believes that it could undercut British Coal by quite a margin. While private electricity industry may gain from such deals in the short term, our country will lose. Not only will our balance of payments be affected, but huge numbers of people will be out of work and have to be paid dole rather than contribute from their taxes, as they would much prefer to do.
  The Bill has been described by an outside expert on the electricity industry as a
  "mixture of political prejudice and technical ignorance."
  The industry itself cannot easily forecast supply and demand, which can fluctuate daily. In an emergency, when

  833
  demand may shoot up surprisingly in a few days, we are told that the various groups would have to co-operate rather than provisions being included in the Bill to control such an emergency.
  We are asking companies to compete to benefit the consumer; in a crisis, however, they are expected to co-operate with one another. That seems to me a contradiction in terms. The electricity industry is much too serious a matter for this flippant Bill, born out of pure political dogma and with no concern or benefit for the consumer. It is merely yet another example of the Government's selling off the family silver to prop up their economic policy—which, like the Bill, is a complete failure.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Many hon. Members have said that they have never believed CEGB statistics before, but suddenly believe them when they suggest that nuclear power is more expensive than coal. Perhaps we should examine that a little more closely. I seem to be the only hon. Member left in the House who believes that nuclear power is the most economic form of fuel, let alone that it is the most environmentally safe.
  We must consider like for like. This country has opted for 20 per cent. nuclear power and 80 per cent. other forms of power. Across the Channel, France, a country of similar size, has invested heavily in nuclear power. I must take my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) to task for referring to a £20 billion debt; I wish that we had made as large an investment in our nuclear industry. With its 80 per cent. nuclear power, France can boast the cheapest electricity in Europe—far cheaper than ours.
  I am also extraordinarily surprised to hear Scottish Members claim that the SSEB will be so terribly disadvantaged. Perhaps they should have gone and listened to its chairman when he was in London a few weeks ago, speaking of the enormous success of its AGRs and Magnox stations. They have demonstrated how even a small nuclear programme can be extremely effective and profitable.
  It is strange that the CEGB should tell us that it is having its costing re-examined, particularly on reprocessing. Reprocessing was always very safe when done at Sellafield. We are all flown up to look at the wonderful THORP reprocessing plant and to be told how many extra billions of pounds will be spent on it, but all that is being back-end-loaded on the Magnox stations and the reprocessing. Of course that suddenly looks bad according to the economics of a "tailing off" industry. The CEGB has made a hash of running its AGRs: two of its stations are a disaster. Yet a few months ago, if asked what its AGR stations were doing, the CEGB would have produced the story that they would come right next year or the year after.
  Now the chairman of big G, finding that he is the only member of the English generating industry who must have nuclear power on his side, is trying to talk down the value of his assets, like any sensible man wanting to demonstrate in the future what wonderful profits he is making. Yet in the Hinkley inquiry, the CEGB is putting forward the case today that Hinkley C would have even cheaper electricity
  834
  than the most modern coal-fired stations. We must look carefully at the statistics that are thrown at us, and ask why the CEGB is suddenly producing such a mish-mash.
  Many hon. Members are keen to tell us about the alternatives—wind power, barrage power, oil and gas turbines. I say, "Great: this is what privatisation will allow us to prove." It will not be for the CEGB to say, "Wind power is not an efficient way to generate electricity." Opposition Members, or Mr. Porritt from Friends of the Earth, can go out and invest their own money—or other shareholders' money—to create alternative power sources. They know that they will be able to sell their electricity on to the grid and to any number of people who want to use it. If it is economic, we shall see such development very quickly.
  The United States has had the same problem of consumers worrying about nuclear power stations on their doorstep, with the scaling down of electricity generation by that method. Much of that has been brought about by the combined heat and power method. It has proved economic for the present, while being produced in small packages. Industrial companies that wish to use the heat that they are creating on site and can also generate electricity. Unlike the CEGB, which says that, as it is the only customer who can buy it, it will pay next to nothing, they can sell it at a competitive price on to the grid.
  We must, however, talk about the environment. It is easy to form a view of a nuclear industry that we have constantly loaded with costs to ensure that it is ultra-ultra-safe. Unfortunately, the coal industry has been creating an enormous amount of pollution, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. The amount of CO2, NOX and sulphur being put into the atmosphere has been a constant environmental problem. I was most grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who stated that the Conservative Government would still be in power in the year 2020, and therefore should be worrying about the possible greenhouse effect and any floods in hon. Members' constituencies when considering the Bill. As I live only 50 ft above sea level, I am most concerned about that.
  We must look extremely carefully at research, particularly research into nuclear electricity as well as other forms of electricity. Money has been spent on the possibilities of fusion rather than fission reactors. Opposition Members, who seem to be so against nuclear power, are keen to preserve the jobs of fast breeder reactor workers in Scotland. We must also consider the smaller nuclear reactors. I heard a very good presentation about the economics of small nuclear power stations, the speed at which they can be produced and the fact that economically they can be much more effective than very large stations. We will be considering an enormous number of questions in Committee. I certainly welcome the light and fresh air coming into the industry. Clearly, without the privatisation of this enormous monopoly, we should not have had such a sensible and sane debate.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: If the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) believes passionately in the economic case of nuclear power, why does he not let it take its chance in the free market, which

  835
  the Government are not prepared to do? The Bill is designed to ensure that the disciplines of the free market never apply to nuclear power.
  I shall return to that later, but I wish to register a small matter, which is important in my constituency and which is still not clarified—the question whether the south of Scotland company will be allowed to be a retail electricity company in England. If it is not, that will represent a change in the arrangements under which a large part of my constituency is supplied by the South of Scotland electricity board. It would be useful to know whether we are to continue to be provided with electricity by the SSEB, and if so, whether or not it can expand beyond the areas it currently supplies in England.
  I shall concentrate on three reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends are right to oppose the Bill. First, it gives no priority to energy conservation. Why is there no obligation on the face of the Bill to make energy conservation, and the efficient use of energy, a priority? Why is it not recognised as part of the non-fossil fuel quota? Why are the energy efficiency improvements which could be achieved in other ways not recognised as part of the non-fossil fule quota? If the object of the non-fossil fuel quota is to make the country less dependent on fossil fuels, any measure which makes it less dependent should count towards that quota. Increases in energy efficiency must come into that category, and that should be put right.
  The notion of the non-fossil fuel quota is misleading, as it is couched only in terms of nuclear power, particularly in the financial provisions which back it up. There is no mention of dual firing, or any other means by which dependency on any one fuel could be reduced. No priority is given to energy conservation.
  Secondly, nuclear power has a protected status. The consumer is taxed so that he shall have nuclear power. The taxpayer is taxed so that nuclear power shall be provided. Companies are placed under an obligation to buy it. It is the most blatant piece of market distortion since the direction of industry in the second world war. It is such a blatant distortion of the free market that it would qualify the Secretary of State to be Energy Secretary in Albania —the country so often used by Conservative Members to describe the attitude of the Labour party. The Secretary of State deserves that categorisation for his incredible departure from the principles that he is supposed to espouse.
  The Secretary of State intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to suggest that one of the advantages of the Bill was that in future there would be a more open debate on nuclear power. Tonight, there has been some focus on the figures for nuclear power and some justified criticism of the CEGB for its grotesque nuclear power figures in the past. We have heard some rather surprising praise of the SSEB from the Labour Front Bench for its record on nuclear power, of which I am extremely critical. It has grossly over-invested in nuclear power recently. How can there be a more open debate on nuclear power if it is no longer possible at a public inquiry on nuclear power stations, such as the one planned at Druridge bay in my constituency, to argue that there is no proven need for the power that that station will generate?
  The answer to that challenge will be that Parliament has decided that, whether or not it is needed, we are obliged to have it. That rigs future public inquiries into nuclear power stations. Unless the Minister can demonstrate that
  836
  there will be a different approach, the argument will be adduced that it is not a question of need, Parliament has decided and the law says that we have to have it whether or not it is needed. It will cease to be possible to argue at a public inquiry that the environmental damage caused by building a nuclear power station is not justified by any overwhelming need for the power that it would generate.
  In the context of the Druridge bay power station which the CEGB wishes to build in my constituency, how can the Department of Energy issue fact sheet 11 at the time of the publication of the Bill, which lists a Druridge bay power station as one of those to be allocated to the National Power Company? There is no Druridge bay power station; nobody has applied for planning permission for that power station, no planning permission has been granted and no licence has been issued for it. It is simply a malevolent gleam in the eye of the chairman of the CEGB. Even he recognises that it is well down the track of his own plans, given the overriding need for more power in the south rather than in the north of England.
  Will the Minister explain how that power station is listed as an assett to be transferred to National Power when it does not exist? His ministerial colleagues may refuse planning permission for it. Is the Minister prejudicing a later decision on the planning permission for that station by listing it in a fact sheet as if it were a foregone conclusion? My constituents have the feeling that it is all cut and dried and that Ministers have given some behind-the-scenes promise that the CEGB and National Power will be able to build at Druridge bay and that the planning arrangements will be a foregone conclusion. That must not be so. We shall fight it, and we are entitled to know why it was listed in that way.
  One consequence of the protected status of nuclear power is that those who object to the building of particular nuclear power stations will have their arguments ruled out by the Bill.
  My third reason for being so strongly opposed to the Bill is that it lacks any acceptance of vital social obligations. The Bill allows the vicious penalty of standing charges on pensioners to continue. The SSEB goes one further: it imposes six standing charges a year on its customer. They are quarterly for most of England, but six a year in Scotland. They are very much resented, and the Bill does nothing to remove them.
  The Bill does nothing to help those who are not on mains electricity. Many of my constituents and many people in other rural areas do not have mains electricity. The Government are not continuing the present Hydro Board obligation to help people in rural areas, and they are certainly doing nothing like that to help consumers in other parts of the country. It is simply not good enough for the industry to pass out of public ownership with no provision for the remaining people who do not have the benefit of mains electricity.
  I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are no enthusiasts for the present structure of the electricity industry. Ministers have quite rightly quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who suggested that it would be possible to consider ways of privatising the generation of electricity so as to ensure there was some real competition. But that requires continued public maintenance of the national grid, which is conspicuously lacking in the Bill. It would require much more real competition than the Government are introducing. The Government are putting the electricity industry in turmoil without any hope of

  837
  increasing competition, without any hope of promoting conservation, without any hope of maintaining the social obligations of the industry and with the express purpose of subsidising, feather-bedding and protecting nuclear power.
  I agree with the comments by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) about the electricity industry. The point of difference between us is that I do not share his apparent belief that the Government have any intentions of putting the Bill right and turning it into the kind of legislation that could reasonably attract wider support. The Bill will throw the electricity industry into turmoil without achieving the objectives which I have set out, and it deserves to be opposed.
  8 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: I have great pleasure in supporting the latest element of the Government's denationalisation programme. It will be the most successful element of that programme because there will be more competition than with telecommunications and gas.
  I refute the Opposition's absurd allegations that Conservative Members are ideological and dogmatic. In 1947, when electricity was centralised and nationalised under the then Labour Government, the industry was not technically inefficient. There had been no labour disputes between 1926 and 1947. Over a 20-year period, output increased by a factor of 10. The industry had modern, not dilapidated plant and there was within it no high unemployment. There was no case for the electricity industry being taken from private companies and local authorities other than that of spiteful Socialist dogma. That was why the industry was put into the nationalised sector in 1947.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: What is the hon. Gentleman talking about? He was not born then.
  Mr. Janman: I can see that the hon. Gentleman was born a long time before me.
  It is worth examining the merits of nationalisation which the Opposition would put forward. There is the so-called merit that we all own the electricity industry because it is nationalised. What utter nonsense. If we asked the majority of people in this country whether they own electricity, they would look at us in blank amazement. The state owns it, and it is run by politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests at heart, not those of consumers. Citizens may not own the electricity industry, but we are all consumers, whether at home or because people work for companies which use electricity for industrial purposes. Because of the competition element in the legislation, the entire population, as consumers, will benefit from the downward price pressure that will be brought about in the medium and long term once denationalisation has taken place.
  Another myth of nationalisation is that it leads to improved industrial relations. Between 1945 and 1987, 1·928 million man days were lost in the three nationalised industries—gas, electricity and water. That is hardly proof that nationalisation brings about a calmer atmosphere and fewer days lost through strikes. The devil of nationalisation has two heads, of course—that of the monopoly of
  838
  capital which it brings about and that of the monopoly of labour with its power over consumers, the economy and the nation.
  We are told that nationalisation is a guarantee of lower energy prices. Since 1963, there have been seven price increases in a given 12-month period of about double or more than double the inflation rate. The worst two examples occurred under Labour Administrations—in 1974, there was a one-off price increase of 33 per cent., against inflation of 17·9 per cent., and a year later, an increase of 47·1 per cent., against inflation of 24·6 per cent. I am not scoring points off the Opposition but wish to show that nationalisation is no guarantee of low prices. In 1963, under a Conservative Administration, when inflation was running at 1·6 per cent., the price of electricity increased by 8·7 per cent.—more than five times the inflation rate. The issue is not the political hue of the Government of the day but whether the consumer is best served by choice and competition or by a monopoly which the Opposition would wish to impose.
  There are two coal-fired power stations in my constituency. Over the past few months, I have taken it upon myself to talk to management and officials of the Transport and General Workers Union. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the managements of those power stations are enthusiastic and optimistic about the future of the stations. I should, however, like him to respond to some of the worries that members of the TGWU have expressed to me. They would like information on the likely level of foreign investment in the electricity industry, post-denationalisation.
  Given the changes that will occur in the industry, it would be useful to get a commitment that the changes will be handled sensitively. The TGWU officials in my constituency talk about the many existing industry traditions. That is a euphemism for too much demarcation and therefore too much overmanning. If the industry is to become more efficient, as it will after denationalisation, there may have to be some reductions in the work force. I do not, of course, know the circumstances of any one plant. Are there likely to be reductions? If so, I should like a commitment that it will be sensitively handled by generous voluntary redundancies.
  Time is short and, because other colleagues wish to speak, I shall summarise my arguments. It is clear that the legislation will mean major changes in the electricity industry. It will mean a change in the way that investment decisions are made. Instead of being producer-led, they will be consumer-led. Investment will be led by the way in which the new distribution companies choose to buy their source of energy. The investment decisions of the new generating companies—there will definitely be more than two such companies—will be affected by market conditions and not by political priorities in Whitehall. There will be much more competition and consumer choice, which will lead to a downward pressure on prices. There will be a long-term future for the energy industry and, in particular the electricity industry. There will be increased flexibility for all concerned on the generating and the consumer sides, with the industry being accountable directly to the industrial consumer and to the domestic consumer via the 12 distribution companies.
  This is an excellent Bill, which is long overdue. We should have introduced this measure in the 1950s. I am pleased to support it.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I wish that we had more time to develop the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) because we could show the House how wrong he is. I shall deal with two of the matters that he raised, the first of which is consumer choice. There is no such thing in the Bill, and the consumer cannot do a thing about it. He has to take the electricity that is supplied to him. The domestic consumer does not have a row of switches enabling him to take his supply from a Scottish board, a Yorkshire board or a board in the south. He must take the electricity from wherever it is distributed. He has no choice in the matter and it is time that we got away from that argument.
  I should like to nail the lie about price increases in 1963, 1964 and 1965. I worked for British Coal from the 1950s up to the 1960s, and we said at that time that the Labour Government were wrong in their policies towards the coal industry. We told them that the Arabs would not always live in tents. That proved to be right, because in the 1960s the price of oil was increased not two or three times, but four times. That was the reason for higher prices to industry. The Government were warned then, and we are warning the Government now, to be careful how they treat the electricity industry. In the Army there used to be a saying, "If it moves, salute it, and if it doesn't, whitewash it." That is the Government's idea of privatisation. Everything goes and they are whitewashing the costs of nuclear generation.
  The generation and supply of electricity are not marketable commodities. This is a key strategic industry, but what is wrong with it? It is clearly efficient and provides an excellent service and the customer trusts it. I am not convinced by the argument about competition. Perhaps later the Minister will explain where the competition will come from and how it will arise. Perhaps he will also give us an estimate of how much prices will fall. We have been told that prices will continue to fall, but the Minister should say when that will happen.
  Electricity is a marvellous commodity. One cannot hear it, touch it, taste it or smell it and it cannot be stored. It must he used at the point of production. The Government are selling something that we cannot hear, smell or touch. This is competition in the industry, because the merit system used by the distribution boards ensures that electricity is supplied at the cheapest possible price. Anybody who goes to the distribution boards to see how they work will see that, if a small pump breaks down and causes an increase in the generation price, it is stopped and the next cheapest one is used. That goes on throughout 24 hours.
  The Magnox nuclear power station is nearing the end of its life, and will probably finish in about 10 years. We have five AGRs and three of them are not working properly. Millions of pounds have been poured into those three AGRs to try to get them working before privatisation. The generating boards will tell any hon. Member who wants to ask that Magnox electricity is far dearer than that produced by a coal-fired power station, that AGR electricity is marginally dearer than coal-fired electricity and that the PWR electricity is the only one that is cheaper. However, we have only one of those. It is said that we need four more and that they will cost £6 billion.
  840
  Who will pay £6 billion without an assurance that at the end of the investment there will be a sale? That is what it comes down to. Clause 4 of the Bill makes it an offence to
  "(a) generate electricity for the purpose of giving a supply to any premises or enabling a supply to be so given;
  (b) transmit electricity for that purpose; or
  (c) supply electricity to any premises"
  unless the Secretary of State gives a licence.
  People who talk about small power stations being allowed to operate are fooling themselves. The Secretary of State will not allow small power stations. He wants to ensure that they do not compete with nuclear power stations so that they can be kept. That is what the clause is all about. If that is what the Government intend to do, they should say so. Of course we shall continue to oppose them, but there is far more of a quarrel when they try to cover things up. Who will bring in small generating plants and feed the electricity into the grid? If such small generating stations are allowed, what will happen to the large boys and to the £6 billion that is to be invested? They will not allow small generating stations to depress their profit margins. The domestic customer, not the industrial customer, will suffer.
  Prices will not decrease—they will increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was right when he spoke about a 25 per cent. increase in prices. The figures have been worked out and I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. There will be no competition and no consumer choice and there is no need for the Bill.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate because I have had experience of dealing with foreign power-generating companies and their experience is relevant to some of the proposals in the Bill.
  In contrast to what has been said by some Opposition Members, I shall begin by saying that the Bill is long overdue. That is because there are no longer any valid reasons for the provision of power being in the state's hands alone, other than because of a threat to continuity of supply, strategic national interests on security. In peace time and with an increasingly sophisticated generating and distribution system, none of the reasons that I have mentioned is valid.
  If one looks to America or nearer home to Finland or Socialist Sweden, one sees excellent examples of private, non state-owned generation and distribution companies providing a superbly reliable service to the customer. I remind Opposition Members that in both those Scandinavian countries even nuclear power generation is in private or non state hands and has a magnificent safety record. They should look at the relationship and shareholding structures of OKG and Forsmarks Kraftgrupp of Sweden and at Teollisuuden Voima Oy and Imatran Voima Oy of Finland. So much for the argument about whether the industry should be state-owned or private.
  In welcoming the move to the private sector, I am relieved to see that efforts have been made to ensure that the progress which has been made by the CEGB on the sophistication of the national grid will not be lost in the division and transfer into private hands. I welcome the considerable emphasis on regulation and supervision when normally I would be suspicious of those things. I am

  841
  relieved that the merit order dispatch system will be preserved, but I know that many hon. Members will want to question the Minister about contracts between generators. They will want to be sure that take or pay contracts, or contracts direct to customers or between supply companies and other generators, will not harm this system or make difficult the concept of a pool of generators. That is important and I am sure that hon. Members will elaborate on it in Committee.
  I have already had discussions with one major consumer near my constituency who has been approached with a direct supply contract from EDF of France. The impact of this type of competition, while beneficial to customers in cost terms, should not be allowed to destroy a sophisticated system that benefits all customers, especially domestic customers, and which has taken a long time to evolve. It may place the new supply companies in a less than competitive position, and that might result in higher rather than lower costs to the domestic user.
  I support my hon. Friend's contention that competition should be the best guarantee of customers' interests. I am pleased to see that the Bill lays a framework for the industry in which decisions about the industry's future and the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of all customers and, above all, will give the industry's managers more scope to use their initiative in the interests of their customers. This is, of course, reinforced by the measures in the Bill for giving customers new rights rather than just safeguards. That is important and I hope that it will be expanded in Committee.
  This is an exciting opportunity for those working in the industry and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend will ensure, when it comes to the flotation, that those who work in the industry as well as customers will be offered a direct stake in their industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make these proposals clear in Committee. Although the Bill leaves open some technical and operating questions which I spoke about earlier and which will need to be clarified in Committee, it is radical yet structured and deserves the support of the House.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: When he opened today's debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that there is no such thing as perfect competition in the electricity supply industry. That is a simple truism. He should also have added that there is no such thing as what might be termed imperfect competition in the electricity supply industry, for the notion of imperfect competition is itself an economic theoretical concept. Very little competition is possible within the electricity supply industry. Neither perfect nor imperfect competition possible because masses of competing producers and competing consumers are required. The electricity supply industry's production is termed a natural monopoly. That term has been used by the Minister and it has been used in connection with the water privatisation Bill—that public utilities are natural monopolies. That means that they cannot help but be monopolies.
  The idea of natural monopolies was introduced near the end of the 19th century by essentially Conservative theorists to explain certain changes that were occurring in society, so they said that utilities such as the railways were
  842
  natural monopolies and therefore had to be regulated. That old-fashioned notion is now re-emerging in connection with how the electricity and water industry privatisations are to take place. It is not just that competition is impossible among electricity producers: it is difficult to have anything that amounts to competition among consumers. We cannot easily opt—except at great capital or consumer cost—for oil, gas, coal or electric heating, thereby turning away from the method that we previously used in the home or industry. Theoretically we can do so, and, sometimes, people will.
  However, it is much less easy for consumers to opt for other utilities. We cannot have nuclear-powered microwaves—except in the sense that nuclear power can be fed into the electricity industry and used in microwaves. Nowadays, we do not opt for gas street lighting as distinct from electric lighting. We do not opt for oil-driven television sets as distinct from electrically powered ones. We do not opt for coal-fired computers. It is nonsense to claim that there is competition in those utilities.
  As utilities are privatised, what is to happen to those who will control and own them? Are we to have special legislation to prevent interlocking directorships when the barons of the energy industry grow up to control what is being done? The little people might initially get their hands on a few shares that give them no control over the industry, apart from being able to ensure that it operates according to what are considered to be market principles, which means that the work force and others will suffer considerably.
  In such circumstances, monopolies, duopolies, cartels, or whatever, display considerable similarities. They restrict output to raise prices, control their labour forces by their power, and manipulate demand by advertising. The Government are privatising and doctrinaire. They solidly believe in controlling people by advertising. That is exactly the technique that they use to persuade the electorate to co-operate and to sell off public assets and hand them over to small groups in society.
  The only answer to natural monopolies in public utilities is public ownership, but, by itself, public ownership is not sufficient. We also require public regulation to control how the public industry is run. That means that restraint should be exercised upon any monopoly. The only possible restraints that can be operated upon the monopolies that we are talking about —natural monopolies—are those of a democratic nature. That means producer democracy in which workers operate self-management techniques, and it means consumer democracy in which consumers operate, influence and control.
  One aspect of consumer democracy should be parliamentary democracy. It should be possible, through the operation of parliamentary democracy, civil liberties and rights, and parliamentary and council elections in this country, to influence what takes place. We have an elected dictatorship, rather than a democratic system. The Government are destroying the possibility of producer democracy and consumer democracy, which are the answers to any problems that have emerged.
  The use of private monopoly, duopoly, cartels or whatever we like to call them in the electricity supply industry will lead to massive coal imports from South Africa and Colombia, and the destruction of the remnants of most of the remaining coal industry in this country, especially in north Derbyshire. The north Derbyshire

  843
  coalfield will be under considerable threat. To try to defend its interest, the Coal Board will react by closures and the development of super-pits and opencast mining techniques. The heart of the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East can be ripped out by opencast mining techniques.
  I have a map from the Opencast Executive, which shows that in the rural and Conservative areas of my constituency, which are considerable, there is massive opencast potential. In the working-class areas, where there was a great number of pits, even existing pits will be closed and coal will be mined by opencast methods. That is the approach that the Government will take.
  There will also be an attack upon supply industries that have many export markets. They will be destroyed by the import of coal into this country. Shops and services and the local business rateable values will collapse. There are also social implications. In Derbyshire, for instance, 9,700 jobs are estimated by the Coalfield Communities Campaign to be put at risk because the measures that are associated with this development will produce problems. There is also the development of nuclear power and the nuclear nonsense, and the considerable environmental and social dangers that will be created by it. The Government are introducing a dangerous system of private monopoly power to be used against the interests of people.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am most grateful for your calling me to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to limit my remarks.
  The Bill is an exciting concept. It opens the electricity industry to a new dynamic. It sets the management of the electricity industry free from Government control for the first time in its life. I can remember, during my days at university, studying economics and, time after time, realising that investment plans for the electricity supply industry had been sacrificed by various post-war Governments on the altar of economic efficiency. That is why we have some of the problems with our electricity supply industry today. The Bill removes obstacles to investment in that vital industry.
  In the document "The Generating Game", published by the Central Electricity Generating Board, there are three statements. They are, that electricity is the power behind modern civilised life; that convenient electricity binds together the fabric of 20th century society; and that with this comes the responsibility to ensure reliable electricity supplies. The Bill responds to those three statements.
  I shall address the main part of my remarks to the point about reliable supplies. From the conversations that I have had with the chairman of the North-Western electricity board, NORWEB, I sense that he and his staff are excited about how the Bill will open up new forms and new sources of electricity generation in the north-west. New sources of energy will be available from the industrial sector. the proponents of combined heat and light production. New sources of nuclear electricity will also be possible. All those opportunities will be available, as well as giving that management the ability to run its company in the interests of its consumers.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is unclear about the powers of consumers who are
  844
  shareholders. Many of those people will beat a path to the annual general meetings of electricity supply companies that fail to deliver.
  Some 3,500 of my constituents are, however, concerned about the provisions of the Bill. They work for British Nuclear Fuels plc and make the fuel rods for all our existing nuclear power stations. They want to make the fuel pellets for the PWRs. They strongly believe that what they contribute to the electricity supply of this country is concentrated, reliable energy.
  In my hand I have the equivalent of 1½ tonnes of coal. It is a small pellet from an advanced gas-cooled reactor. It provides a vivid picture of the nature of nuclear electricity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who has just pretended to faint, demonstrates one of the problems we face—the total irrationality about, and lack of understanding of, the intrinsic safety of nuclear electricity.
  Those 3,500 workers strongly believe that they made the contribution that kept the lights burning when the miners deserted those who needed electricity supplies. They want to be given the chance to make their contribution to our supply of electricity through a newer, slimmed-down, more efficient BNFL.
  When the Bill is considered in Committee, I hope that Ministers will remember the obligations we have to those workers in the nuclear industry in my constituency, at Sellafield and at the other power stations. They must ensure that those parts of the Bill that refer to continuity in the supply of electricity reflect the contribution that nuclear power makes.
  On 20 April 1988, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), spoke at the annual luncheon of the British Nuclear Forum. He said:
  "Nuclear power makes a valuable, indeed vital, contribution to diversity in electricity generation and so to the security of supply. It would be folly to rely on a closely related narrow group of fuels for electricity generation. Fossil fuels historically have shown that they are all, in one way or another, highly volatile in both price and availability."
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Jack: I will decline the offer of further information as I still have some to give and little time in which to do so.
  In 1972 there were rota disconnections to the electricity supply. None of us needs reminding of the events during the miners' strike. To put our dependence on nuclear sources of energy into perspective, it should be noted that only 5 per cent. of the total energy usage in this country —not electricity usage—comes from nuclear sources. I believe that that is almost too low a percentage in a world where our hydrocarbon fuel supplies are always at risk.
  I am attempting to advocate the part that nuclear electricity can play in the future of our energy supplies. I am concerned about the Bill because, although, quite rightly, in its later clauses, it reflects the problems of decommissioning our existing Magnox and other nuclear power stations, as drafted, it does not give the same strength of commitment to addressing some of the technical problems particularly associated with the AGRs.
  In Committee, it would be good if Ministers could give some consideration to the cost legacy that will be passed on to the large power generating company that tries to bring the Magnox stations and the older AGRs up to

  845
  power. If we intend to cater for problems at the back end of the industry, it is logical to cater for the problems at the front end of the industry.
  In early December on "This Week", a programme on ITV, it was pointed out that Hinkley Point power station generated electricity at 2·64 per kilowatt hour; Drax power station generates electricity at 2·46p. That is a narrow difference, but it does not take into account the environmental consequences of fossil fuel burning to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) ably referred.
  On 11 December an article in the Sunday Telegraph magazine contained the sentence:
  "The lessons for Earth are frightening. Unless we switch radically from the burning of fossil fuels to nuclear power, temperatures on Earth could double by the 22nd century."
  We will not be around then, but we have an important responsibility to lay the foundations for an energy policy that is environmentally safe. Nuclear electricity is a safe form of power generation.
  My constituents who work for British Nuclear Fuels plc want a chance to play their part. Their company has shown a willingness to modify its procedures and to become efficient. It can also tackle the problems of reprocessing, which is vital to maintaining the security of supply of our uranium assets. It can tackle the problem of decommissioning power stations in an efficient way. It is on record as saying that it welcomes electricity privatisation as it will sharpen up its act. British Nuclear Fuels even has the potential to become a nuclear generator in its own right. That is an exciting prospect, and the Bill affords that chance.
  It has been estimated that the cost of removing the oil platforms from the North sea when the oil runs out—nuclear energy can delay that inevitable occurrence—is £6 billion, which is twice the estimated cost of decommissioning our Magnox power stations.
  In making a commitment to the role that nuclear power can play in producing electricity for our country, I plead with Ministers to ensure, for the sake of the public, that there is no compromise on safety within the nuclear industry. That would be a folly for which the public would not easily forgive us.
  I wholeheartedly support the Bill and the role that nuclear power can play in its objectives.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. George J. Buckley: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to this debate.
  We have had two days' debate on the problems contained in the Bill. It appears that Conservative Members talk about everything but the electricity industry and the consequences for the economy. I have listened intently to find out what is behind the privatisation proposals. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke of the environmental consequences of using nuclear power, and that is the only point the Prime Minister has made about privatising electricity. She has said that it will provide environmental benefits for the world. No mention has been made of the economic benefits to the nation of privatising the generating boards.
  The Secretary of State has stated four principles to support the Bill. He says that the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of the customer. That
  846
  implies that the customer would have a direct input on the supply of electricity. There is no suggestion in the Bill, however, that the customer would have any such influence. Therefore, that reason does not represent a major pillar of principle to justify the privatisation.
  The Secretary of State has also said that competition is the best guarantee of customers' interest. Once again, the Government seem to take the view that anything publicly owned is more efficient and better able to meet the best interests of the customer if it is privatised. Nothing in the Bill says that that will be so. I suspect that the Minister had a great deal of difficulty grappling with the complexity of the national grid. His best effort was to come forward with two generating companies, one to generate 30 per cent. and the other 70 per cent.
  Such percentages have been proposed more to deal with the nuclear side of generation than for anything else. If the percentages were more equally divided between the two companies, the problems of dealing with the liabilities of the nuclear industry that are beginning to develop would face the companies. National Power has been made as big as it is—70 per cent.—as an inducement to people in the private sector to take on the difficult generating capacity of the nuclear industry.
  The Bill outlines a regulatory framework to promote competition, oversee prices and protect customers under the national monopolies that remain. The Government, who are exponents of the theory of the private market, accept in the legislation that it will create monopolies. So regulations will be imposed to protect customers from those monopolies. One of the main points made by Conservative Members is that the public monopoly of the CEGB does not serve the nation efficiently. The Bill provides for monopolies of supply companies in the geographical areas for which they are responsible. There will be no competition in those areas, and no option for customers to choose between different sources of supply. That is a complete contradiction of the Government's philosophy, which is to break up the monopoly of the CEGB.
  Another technical dilemma that the Minister must have faced when considering this legislation was that of how to deal with the national grid, a unique technical apparatus that could not be broken down into smaller companies. So the Minister has come up with a mechanism of two, rather than several, companies.
  One of the most appalling aspects of the legislation is the demanding commitment that 20 per cent. of the electricity supply be drawn from nuclear power. That is almost to impose on the privatised supply industry a commitment to take 20 per cent. of its power generation from nuclear energy, even though it is now proving to be one of the most expensive sources of energy produced by the CEGB. The signs are that the private monopolies—that is what they will be—will be only too pleased to invest in nuclear energy; but the experience of development of nuclear energy leaves much to be desired. The Magnox stations, the first nuclear power stations, were built with an overrun of two and a half years. The AGR at Dungeness B had an overrun of 10 years. Private industry would be reluctant to invest capital in nuclear projects with such large overruns.
  The Government's position accords more with their philosophy of privatisation than with improving the nation's electricity supply. The Government's fourth principle is that security of supply must be maintained, but

  847
  such security depends more on diversity of supply—by coal, oil, gas and nuclear power—than on the privatisation of the CEGB. The Bill owes more to dogma than to any desire to improve the efficiency of the supply system, and I feel sure that the Committee will amend many of the proposals in the Bill to make it comply with the industry's needs. Some of its clauses are ill thought out.
  Another thing that disturbs me about the legislation is that the privatised supply industry will not be committed to complying with the EEC regulations on environmental standards. Numerous hon. Members have expressed their concern about the environmental effects of coal and oil —the problems of acid rain, and so on. The regulations on refurbishing and replacing existing plant require no investment in ensuring that that is done in accordance with EEC standards. So, while the nation—and even Conservative Members—express concern about the consequences of coal burning for the environment, the legislation does not commit the private companies to doing anything about them.
  The CEGB has been a major innovator and has conducted much research into the development of electricity. Its technology has been at the forefront of power generation. The suggested private companies that will take over from the CEGB will be more reluctant to invest in research and development for the nation's future generating capacity.
  The new private monopolies will be more likely to make domestic consumers pay high prices than to make major industrial consumers do so. I can foresee pressure being applied by the larger consumers to privately owned monopolies to reduce the costs to British industry.
  The burden imposed by the Government with this Bill may be mainly offset by the importation of so-called cheap coal, which will put our indigenous mining industry in jeopardy. Any private enterprise worth its name is more concerned about its investors than its customers. It is a myth put about by Tory Members that the legislation is mainly designed for the consumer, who will have no influence on the privatised industry, and who will be given no safeguards in the legislation.
  The major regulatory factor imposed by the Government was enacted recently by the Minister of State, who imposed 9 per cent. and 6 per cent. increases on CEGB supplies. That regulatory factor will be used by the Government under the Bill to impose higher prices on the industry.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The most striking aspect of the Bill is the boldness and originality of the concept that it embodies. Until now, only two models for the organisation of electricity generation and distribution, or variations or combinations of them, have been practised in the Western world. The first is the model of the public or private sector vertically integrated utility company with an effective regional monopoly. That is the model which obtains in Germany and the United States and household names in those countries, such as RWE and Con-Edison, are excellent illustrations of it. The other model is the nationwide, vertically integrated, publicly owned monopoly, of which EDF in France and the CEGB in England and Wales are among the most distinguished examples.
  848
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has launched today a completely new departure which represents a third option that has never been tried before. Its novelty and originality appeared to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) as a condemnation in themselves. That may be an interesting sidelight on the intellectual state of the modern Labour party, but it is a short-sighted view to take. I am convinced that, in a number of respects, the new model represents a real advance on previous thinking in this important area of industry.
  I shall highlight three of the aspects in which the Bill represents such an advance. First, for the first time, we shall have real competition in power generation in this country. That means that for the first time the British public will have the assurance that resources in this area are being used efficiently, and they will be the first public in the world to have that assurance. The CEGB, unique among monopolies in world history, may have been able to avoid generating any monopoly costs of its own. It may be that it does not suffer from overmanning, from feather-bedding of any kind or from cosy relationships with particular suppliers: we shall see. There are two possibilities: either we shall have the evidence that, until now, electricity has indeed been generated as cheaply as possible, or we shall succeed in saving those monopoly costs.
  The second important benefit that the Bill will bring is the assurance that all existing generating capacity in this country will be used efficiently, including that standby or surplus primary capacity that exists at present in British manufacturing industry. Under the present regime, there is no way that that existing capacity can be used efficiently, since, effectively, the electricity produced by it can be offered for sale only to the CEGB, which is itself the major competitor of these potential suppliers. That anomaly will be removed by the separation of the national grid from the generating industry.
  The third great advance represented by the Bill, which has not been mentioned in the debate so far but is worthy of the attention of the House, is that, for the first time, we shall achieve real diversification among suppliers of electricity in this country. I do not just mean diversification between alternative sources of energy. Theoretically, we can achieve that even with a single monopoly producer. That has already been achieved under the CEGB regime, although arguably to a very inadequate degree. Diversification between suppliers does not just mean diversification between alternative sources of energy. It does not just mean the benefit of achieving the cost reductions through competition that I have already mentioned. It means that we shall also be diversifying those investment risks that are so crucial in the electricity generation business.
  At present, only one body of men takes the key investment decisions about where and how new generating capacity will be constructed. In future, a whole range of companies will take those decisions. Precisely because the uncertainty of the assumptions that need to be made when investment decisions are taken in this sector is so high, particularly the uncertainty of the assumptions that must be made about the future costs of energy, and because the lead times in respect of construction and commissioning in this sector of industry are so long, those risks are inordinately high and anything that we can do to reduce those risks is well worth while.

  849
  I have no doubt that, left to itself under the present regime, the CEGB, if decided as it apparently has, that we shall need approximately 12,000 MW of additional power between now and the end of the century, it would proceed in its normal way to construct four or five conventional thermal or nuclear power stations. Perhaps we should invest more in alternative renewable sources of energy, or in gas turbine-generated energy which, as the House knows, has the highest thermal efficiency of all, about 56 per cent. Thermal efficiency, unlike energy prices, does not vary, except very slowly with improvements in technology.
  However, it would be wrong for any individual or single body of men to reserve to himself or to themselves the decisions that will need to be taken in this area. It is important to diversify the source of those decisions. Diversification of risk in this area, as with diversification of risk in any area, means reduction of risk. Over time, reduction of risk means reduction of cost. Here again, we are scoring a real advance in the Bill.
  Finally, I wish to say a few words about the distribution companies. It is utterly absurd for Opposition Members to hint, as they have done in the debate, that we should somehow attempt to break the natural monopoly in distribution. Surely they do not seriously mean to say that we should duplicate or triplicate the enormous fixed assets involved in a domestic distribution network.
  In the Bill, we have gone over to a concept that has not been mentioned by Opposition Members, but which they would do well to contemplate. It is the concept of yardstick competition, the ability of both the market and regulators to assess the economic performance of a distribution company by reference to the performance of other comparable companies in the same sector of activity. It is an entirely new concept to be introduced into the electricity industry. It is full of promise and makes me confident that I can commend to the House as much the proposals on distribution as those on the generation of electricity.
  I am convinced that, in years to come, the British public and the British media will give accolades of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both for the boldness with which he has conceived the structure of the electricity industry as enshrined in the Bill and for his courage in putting over, and, I believe, already successfully persuading a great part of the establishment in the generating and distribution sectors of the industry to accept, the merits of his new concept. I believe also that in the coming months we shall see his success in persuading the House of the merits of that concept also.
  9 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: When wind power becomes a commercial proposition, I shall be first in the queue to buy shares in Tory Back Benchers. We have just heard one of the most flatulent contributions from a Conservative Member during a debate in which the contributions from those on the Conservative Benches have rarely risen above the banal. They seem to think that we are talking about self-evident truths. They suggest that privatisation must mean competition and a better deal for consumers. No one has yet provided us with the slightest piece of information that might support that contention.
  850
  What are the United Kingdom's electricity needs? We need a cheap source of power, a secure supply, environmental safety and regard to the satisfaction of increased demands in future. After privatisation, however, the industry will have one aim only, and that will be to maximise profitability on behalf of shareholders. It will seek to maximise the return on the capital that is deployed. It will pursue that aim through minimal price competition, through the development of a cartel, as we see in so many industries that are dominated by a few producers. It will seek the cheapest source of supply. In doing so, it will have minimal regard to strategic issues such as future investment in plant. It will show minimal concern for the consumer and minimal regard for indigenous sources of supply. Unemployment and misery will be caused as a result.
  The need for profitability will lead the industry to sell as much electricity as possible. There will be no incentive for it to save energy and it will use all that is produced. It will minimise the drive for the creation of new plant, as it will wish to maximise the return of capital. This may lead in future to under-development, gaps in provision and shortages for consumers. Consumers will face increasing prices, increasing insecurity and probably a reduction in safety.
  The main problem is that the power requirement in future will increase, and all methods of generating it have environmentally deleterious effects. We have heard nuclear power described so glowingly by Conservative Members, but perhaps that is an inappropriate term. There is the problem of low-level emission radiation, which is generally accepted by my profession to be a bad thing. There is the more unlikely but finite possibility of catastrophic accidents at nuclear plants. In a crowded country such as ours, such accidents would sterilise a large section of our land.
  There is the problem of storage of spent fuel and its processing. There is the problem of decommissioning power stations when they have reached the end of their useful life. There is the problem also—it has not been mentioned by Conservative Members—of difficulties in the supply of fuel. We do not produce our own fuel for nuclear power stations, and there is no guarantee of stability in price or in supply. The fuel comes from South Africa, Namibia, Zaire and Bolivia, for example. These are countries which have poor safety records for their workers, and the likelihood of stable future political conditions cannot be guaranteed.
  At present, nuclear power is not a good option. We have that admission from the lips of the director of the South of Scotland electricity board, Mr. Miller. There is no doubt, however, that there are future possibilities for the supply of nuclear generated electricity. We have the fast breeder technology and the developments at Dounreay. There is also the possibility of nuclear fusion. I shall return briefly to these possibilities and developments at the end of my speech.
  The other main source of supply is coal, of which we have vast indigenous supplies. At present, it is relatively cheap, and it is likely to remain so. Coal-fired power stations are cheaper to build than nuclear stations and are generally safer and more economical. Smaller coal-fired power stations are suitable for combined heat and power projects, especially when the fluidised bed method of burning the stuff is used, which offers a more efficient utilisation of fuel.

  851
  Of course there are problems with coal. Burning coal emits sulphur and nitrous oxides which can be removed by burning low-sulphur coal which ex-miners in my constituency, if they were given the chance, would be delighted to produce, because my constituency sits on about 12 ft of such coal. Alternatively, and more expensively, the emissions may be treated by scrubbing the noxious gases on a sluice.
  Carbon dioxide is also a problem. Conservative Members have made much of that problem, but we must recognise that burning coal does not produce much carbon dioxide compared with the burning of fuel generally and the loss of the biomass in the tropical rain forest. It is interesting that an American company which is about to build a power station has agreed, as part of the deal, to replace a proportion of the biomass in the tropical area, thereby reducing the contribution of the emissions to the overall load of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We must surely consider that, but it has not been considered so far in this country. It is possible to diminish the effects of carbon dioxide release if we are prepared to take action.
  Sadly, other alternatives like wave, wind, tidal power, geothermal or solar sources are not yet commercially viable. Bearing in mind cost and feasibility, such alternative power supplies can only be considered in future. What are the needs for a national strategy? We must consider the long-term need for cheap, secure and expanding supplies of energy. At present, coal is undoubtedly the cheapest option.
  Nuclear power is currently too expensive and too risky, even if we consider the pressurised water reactor programme. which I believe should be abandoned. Perhaps, in future, nuclear energy will have a part to play. We should continue to invest very heavily in research into ways to make that a reality, particular in fast breeder technology and nuclear fusion. Sadly, the Government are reducing their investment in those areas. We must also study the safety aspects more carefully, particularly with regard to the decommissioning programme on the Magnox stations. Nuclear power may well have a role to play in future, but it has very little role to play at present other than in providing expensive electricity for a hapless consumer.
  The main alternative must be to maximise the efficiency of utilisation of supplies. There will be no incentive for a privatised electricity industry to do that. Its incentive would be to sell as much as possible. As responsible politicians, our incentive should be to minimise consumption through better insulation and utilisation and through the use of energy-efficient appliances and storage systems like those used by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. We must consider the development of alternative sources and carry out feasibility studies on wind, wave and tidal power. If we do that, we can be certain of a secure supply of energy in future. The Government's proposals do not offer us that option.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I have listened to this debate over the past two days, but I have not yet heard anyone raise the question of safety and nuclear power. I have heard many contributions, particularly from Conservative Members.
  I am perhaps nearly the oldest member in the Chamber at the moment—and I am not speaking about you, Mr.
  852
  Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to drag you into this argument. I remember the days as a lad when we had candles and oil lamps. I was born in 1926 so I remember all that. We also had gas, but we did not have electricity. It was around but only if one could afford it. It was there, but what happened? The electricity suppliers were not bothered about expansion; they were concerned only about pouring money into their pockets through profits.
  The Secretary of State for Energy wants to take us back to the Victorian era, and we ain't going. I will tell him that straight. The Secretary of State had better watch out when the Bill goes upstairs to Committee because I will be a member of that Committee. I will be whipping that Bill for the Opposition and I want to see the Secretary of State in his place every time we sit. I am sure that we shall have a good argument in Committee.
  Competition has been mentioned time and time again, but it has not yet been proved to me where the competition will be. There will be one industry that provides electricity, as there is today. I welcomed the election of a Labour Government in 1945, and they were a marvellous Government. They saved the electricity industry and they expanded it nationwide, so that everyone who wanted electricity could have it.
  The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) spoke about electricity. All he knew about it when he was a baby and had nappies on was that he put his hand on the wall and switched on the light. That was not the case when I was a kid. All he had to do was to switch on an electric heater, but we had to hug ourselves to keep warm. I remember the days of trams. When the track was being relaid, we would get the wooden blocks to burn for warmth. These lads do not know anything about that because they were not born then. The Secretary of State can take the grin off his face or I shall knock it off in Committee—by God, I shall.
  I have had few moments to myself over the past two days because I have been busy on the Front Bench whipping the Bill. The House will hear the reports of the success that we shall have in the argument in Committee. We shall not win the vote, but we shall win the argument, and the Secretary of State and his team will see that what they have produced in the Bill is not what the British public wants.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: It is good to follow such a stirring speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). His stirring contribution was short, but his contribution in Committee may be longer. It may be longer than the Secretary of State's contribution —but we shall have to wait and see.
  First, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) who, for 16 years, has given great service to the Labour party as my predecessor on the Front Bench energy team. With his customary elegance, he showed once again in his contribution yesterday his skill in highlighting the contradictions in Government policies. My hon. Friend said that the Government's blatant preference for the use of nuclear power cannot be argued on price. The Bill has certainly given up the ghost of arguing that. I, like him, resent the attempts to build up the case for nuclear power by attacking the coal industry—which he highlighted yesterday.

  853
  The real effect of the Bill will be felt in every shop, office, factory and home in Great Britain. That was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who is not in his place now—who said that the coal and electricity industries are inextricably linked. The issue is inseparable from the future of many industries such as the railways, power engineering and major industrial energy users such as the steel, glass and chemicals industries.
  I have a briefing, which the Chemical Industries Association Ltd. sent to me. It comments on the effects of the Bill on the prices that those industries, as big consumers of energy in this country, will have to pay.
  Under the heading "Prices and Price Control", the CIA explains that it does not accept the reasons given for increasing electricity prices by more than 8 per cent. this year, by a further 6 per cent. next April and possibly the same again in 1990. It goes on to say that it believes that any price control formula should take 1987 as its base year —excluding the privatisation sales booster increases that the Government imposed earlier this year.
  The proposals have already affected electricity costs; there is no doubt about that. The price increases that the Government forced on the industry last April, together with next April's price hike amount to an increase of more than 15 per cent. Those added costs are all directly related to the substance of the Bill.
  On 3 November 1987, the Secretary of State for Energy tried to dismiss the price increases by saying that they were to do with raising revenues in the industry. He said:
  "In considering the targets for these years, the Government have had to take into account the fact that, although in the recent past the electricity supply industry has had surplus capacity, that position is now changing. On current forecasts, the Central Electricity Generating Board envisages that at least 13 GW of new capacity will be needed to meet demand by the end of the century."—[Official Report, 3 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 801.]
  The Government moved into funding privatisation of the electricity supply industry in November 1987.
  For many years the medium-term development plan that was used by the CEGB was the one thing that set prices for the electricity supply industry that took into account all the costs of new build, and so on. The report dealing with the period from 1986 to 1993 said:
  "On the assumptions upon which these forecasts are based, retail tariff increases over the plan period will be below the rate of general inflation."
  I put it to the Secretary of State that that is certainly not what happened in April this year or what is planned for April next year.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State can be forgiven. He has great difficulty in understanding the price implications. The House will recall that yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that private sector electricity in comparable industrial countries was expensive, the Secretary of State said:
  "Prices in Japan are almost twice ours, and prices in West Germany are about 50 per cent. higher."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 689.]
  That shows what a muddle the Government are in. It is obvious to most informed commentators that under private ownership the price of electricity will rise, although we shall have to wait and see whether prices will be as high as in Germany and Japan.
  Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about prices. Will he take into account the fact that, in the five years to October this year, electricity prices have risen by 2·8 per cent. per annum whereas during the five years of the last Labour Government they rose by 22 per cent. every year?
  Mr. Barron: That may have had something to do with the cost of base fuels to the electricity supply industry, but I shall consider that question later in my speech.
  I was referring to the position of the Secretary of State as regards the price of electricity and suggesting that it would rise under private ownership. This will happen mainly as a result of the Government's obsession with nuclear power—an obsession which, to be fair, was not entertained by the current Conservative Government alone, but an obsession that has failed the nation in its promise of fuel so cheap that it would eventually not be worth printing electricity bills requesting payment for it.
  The reality of that obsession has been the failure to meet construction targets on costs, times and production levels. At their peak, Magnox stations have only ever produced 3·8 GW, compared with an expectation of 5 GW. The AGRs, which by 1975 were planned to provide some 8 GW, have a current output capacity of 2·7 GW. After many years we have learnt the truth about the economic cost of Britain's nuclear power programme.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative party has an obsession with nuclear power. He seems to think that, by definition, nuclear power is much more expensive than electricity generated in any other way. Why is it that in France, which has much more nuclear power than we have, electricity is much more cheaply produced than here?
  Mr. Barron: Let me direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Library note on the cost of electricity generation in Britain compared with that in France. He will see from that independent assessment that the cost of electricity generated by privatised nuclear power in France is far higher than that generated in the public sector in Britain.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Barron: May I continue?
  In October 1987, in a television interview, Lord Marshall described the British nuclear power industry. For perhaps the first time since the nuclear industry had been set up in Britain, people who knew about it were beginning to tell the truth.
  In "Brass Tacks" on BBC—I hope it is not too difficult for Conservative Members to accept that we still have a British Broadcasting Corporation—the interviewer referred to a letter that had been sent by the CEGB to the "Stop Sizewell B" campaign in December 1986 which said that Magnox stations had been saving consumers about £250 million a year. In answer to a question, Lord Marshall said:
  "You are correct to say on the Magnox stations as a whole, whether or not Magnox has been an economic bargain or not in the narrow sense does depend on their performance in the future and the price of coal in the future, so in that sense it's jam tomorrow."
  The interviewer then said:
  "And that's also true of the AGRs?"
  Lord Marshall replied:

  855
  "That is bound to be the case because we've only got some of them working just in the last few years."
  If even the most ardent supporter of nuclear power accepts its failure, why will not the Government?
  The Bill contains a nuclear levy and tax. Will the Secretary of State for "Nuclear" Energy tell us exactly what the nuclear levy in clause 31 is for? Is it to finance the expensive Magnox and AGR costs now and the PWR costs in future? Does it also include the cost of building the new family of PWRs? What is clause 31 for?
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Clause 31 is straightforward. At the moment, a cost for nuclear energy is built into an electricity bill. It is being paid now. It has been paid for the past 30 years. We are isolating it and demonstrating exactly what it is. If there is a difference between that and fossil fuel prices, we shall spread it over all fossil fuels. It is not a new tax or anything invented; it identifies the expense.
  Let me make one other point. The hon. Gentleman has probably forgotten that the AGR programme was imposed on Britain by a Labour Government.
  Mr. Barron: I acknowledged that earlier. I am sure that the Secretary of State for "Nuclear" Energy did not miss it.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has said is that this is to pay for a nuclear programme. It is to pay for the PWR programme that the CEGB has said in evidence is more expensive than British coal. It is the penalty that consumers will have to pay for the Government's obsession with nuclear power.
  As the debate got nearer, the sound of the bugle of retreat was heard louder and louder. We are now led to believe that the nuclear levy is to pay for the nuclear programme. In The Observer on Sunday, the Department of Energy said:
  "the levy would not, as expected, go to subsidise the multi-billion pound construction of a new family of nuclear reactors. A department spokesman said National Power, the new generating company responsible for nuclear energy, will be expected to raise the finance on the market like everybody else."
  If that is so, why the levy?
  We are led to believe that the reason for that decision is, according to the Secretary of State in his speech yesterday to maintain a strong nuclear industry. Yet the British nuclear industry has never been strong, either in security of supply or economics. It is not the diversity of supply that concentrates the minds of industrial and domestic consumers, but security of supply, and it is that which the Bill puts at risk.
  The current forecast of demand by the year 2000 is 56·9 GW. Between now and then, over 5,000 MW of coal capacity is to be closed together with over 1,000 MW of oil and nearly 3,000 MW of nuclear power.
  It is predicted that necessary capacity for the year 2000 will be between 12 or 15 GW. We are led to believe that nuclear power, if it comes on stream, will provide us with about one third of that need. We have heard from the Association of Independent Electricity Producers that the maximum capacity that could be supplied by private generators would be about 4 GW.
  Another option that could be used to meet future demand—I do not know whether it is being considered —is the refurbishment, rather than retirement, of coal-fired power stations. A decision on that should be
  856
  taken as soon as possible, since a programme of refurbishment would be carried out over years, not overnight.
  Opposition Members would welcome the addition to our electricity supplies of the long overdue combined heat and power schemes. Their contribution will of necessity be small. Given that the applications for new generators, which are talked about but never named, are likely to be top-up stations rather than for baseload generation, there must be a major question about whether the short-termism of the newly privatised industry is adequate to ensure the efficient replacement of retiring stations.
  Replacing baseload capacity that is being lost involves many "ifs". We cannot risk any shortfall in supply and, therefore, the building of a big coal-fired power station is imperative. That should not be on a green-field site because we have seen the problems at Fawley, but it could be built somewhere like West Burton. That is necessary if the Government are to show that they are concerned about security of supply. It would bridge the gap between the supply and demand forecast and would enable the CEGB to do what it is good at. No matter what its critics have said, it is good at using proven technology to guarantee security of supply in this country, and a new coal-fired power station in the midlands coalfields would be able to do that.
  The Secretary of State has a problem in his reluctance to discuss the strategic role to be played by the British coal mining industry. The Government have chosen to ignore a major fuel supplier in electricity generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said in his contribution to yesterday's debate that British Coal's half-year operating profit was £119 million—the best half-yearly figure that it has reported in 20 years. Unfortunately, the press conference and the debate surrounding that result had an atmosphere more like that of a wake than a celebration, and talk by media pundits of a rundown in British coal mining on top of the 10,000 to 20,000 jobs that have already been lost was totally uncalled for—yet it was not contradicted by British Coal or the Secretary of State for Energy.
  Instead, we must grow used to indifference and the perpetual stance taken by the Tory Government to the domestic coal mining industry. Of course the Secretary of State speaks of investing large sums of taxpayers' money, to ensure that we have a modern and competitive coal industry. However, the right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Select Committee, which commented that such observations avoided the real issue.
  The issue is simple. Today, the British coal industry simultaneously faces two major problems: first, the need to establish a new commercial relationship with the electricity supply industry; secondly, the unprecedented low level of international seam coal prices. To ignore them, and to suffer more job losses while having increased dependency on imports, will be of no use to this country.
  At the heart of the matter is the Government's involvement in the historic pledge argument. The Secretary of State for Energy made an historic pledge at this year's Conservative party conference. I have some experience of historic pledges, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are few occasions on which they are worth the paper they are written on. In my experience, few historic pledges have ever come true. We shall have to wait to see whether that of the Secretary of State does.

  857
  The Select Committee on Energy, with its majority Conservative membership, clearly summed up the Government's attitude in its conclusions. The Select Committee said that it was disturbed at the uneven treatment being given by the Government to coal and nuclear power. The problems of nuclear power have been glossed over, while there has traditionally been emotional hostility towards coal mining. Such hostility does not go back just to my time in the industry but for generations; the Tory party's hostility to it is well known.
  It must be difficult for the Secretary of State for Energy to accept that in the last few years the British coal industry has lowered prices by 20 per cent. in real terms, reduced costs by 30 per cent. in real terms, and increased productivity by 75 per cent. in real terms. All that has been done at some economic and social cost to mining communities, with every one of them still having an unhealthy share of the nation's unemployed—very much so. And in his speech yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know the projected likely fossil fuel costs for years to come.
  The Electricity Bill is not born out of consumer needs, it does not argue the case for privatisation of the electricity supply, and its claims to introduce competition are fictitious. Most Conservative Members have had to apologise when, having trawled through the Bill, they failed to find where it introduces competition.
  In his speech on 12 October to the Tory party conference in Brighton, the Secretary of State claimed that this was the first privatisation to be regionally based. He said:
  "In privatising the area boards, we shall be creating 12 powerful companies, each with its headquarters and decision-making in the region that it serves."
  He gave the example, and I am pleased that he did, of the Yorkshire electricity board. He said that the decision that governs the quality and price of electricity supply to my home will be made in Yorkshire by Yorkshire men answerable to the people of Yorkshire, and that domination by London will be a thing of the past.
  The Secretary of State obviously has plans to move his Department up to Yorkshire. He is obviously going to appoint a director-general and/or agent who comes from Yorkshire and has offices in Leeds, London and Edinburgh. That must be his master plan, because he knows as well as I do that any major decisions on electricity will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy and the director-general. They will decide the price of electricity; they will set the nuclear tax and levy; they will set the costs of transmission; they will issue the licences for generators and supply boards; they will be responsible for security and sufficiency of supply.
  As has been pointed out by many hon. Members and highlighted by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the Secretary of State will be involved in detailed obligations in no few than 67 distinct and separate parts of the Bill. The Bill does not offer consumer choice, but says, "Take it or leave it." It has not satisfied the concerns of industries whose energy costs are a major part of their expenditure. It has not satisfied the needs of consumers, nor has it quelled the doubts of the 55 per cent. of the British public
  858
  who want the electricity industry to stay in the public sector. We shall speak for them tonight, and vote against the Bill.
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Let me begin by asking the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) a question. In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who asked why electricity prices had gone up by 180 per cent. under the last Labour Government, I believe that he said, "Fuel costs." Does that explain why postal charges went up by 147 per cent., rail charges by 171 per cent., bus fares by 150 per cent. and water charges by 150 per cent? He need not answer now; a letter will do.
  The gist, as I have understood it, of what the hon. Member for Rother Valley was saying when he was not talking about coal—the gist, indeed, of much of what Opposition Members have said over the past two days —is that the British electricity supply industry operates in a state close to perfection. In the imagination of Opposition Members, electricity consumers, distributors and the one producer apparently pull together in almost perfect harmony. Investment decisions planned and executed by that one producer flow through with such precision as to ensure that costs are at a minimum, power stations work with total efficiency, electricity is priced as low as it can be and service can only be described as pastoral.
  That imagery has only one flaw: it is not true, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken eloquently to that effect over the past two days. Yesterday, particularly good speeches were made by my right hon. Friends for Selby (Mr. Alison) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and by my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). Today we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves). The first part of what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) had to say was also eloquent and excellent. All those speeches were in favour of radical change in the industry.
  Yardsticks in a monopolistic state-controlled industry are, of course, hard to find. But if efficiency is to be measured, for instance, by the rate of return on capital, it must be realised that this is so low in the electricity supply industry that it falls short even of the rate of return rules for new investment in the public sector laid down by the last Labour Government.
  When the Government have insisted that rates of return are raised to a realistic level to prepare the industry for the massive new investment in plant and machinery that will be required over the next 10 years, the industry's main response has been not to cut costs but to raise prices. Nor should we be surprised that that should be so, because 80 per cent. of the costs of producing electricity in England and Wales are at present associated with a single producer which is allowed to pass its costs, whatever they are and however they are set, straight through to the customer. We

  859
  have no real way of judging whether those costs are defensible. It is intrinsic to the system that there are few benchmarks by which we can judge efficiency within the
  Contrary to what has been said by the Opposition, the British electricity supply industry has been operating for several years with expensive excess capacity, with power stations which have not been built to time and cost, and several of which in England and Wales still do not produce electricity efficiently. The Opposition do not appreciate it, but we know that all that is paid for by the customer. The repeated bleat has gone up throughout the debate from the Opposition Benches asking us why we wish to restructure the industry and why we wish to privatise it. It is because, by a process of introducing competition where it most directly affects costs, of regulating the monopoly sectors in support of the consumer, of encouraging employees to own their own shares and of launching great new regional centres of power, we mean radically to improve the system. That is the answer to the question: "Why privatise?".
  In a moment I shall answer some of the other questions raised on both sides of the House about how much competition and how much regulation. Let me deal first with some of the specific points which have been touched on in the debate. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about special shares. Arrangements will be put in place to safeguard the independence of the area boards, National Power, Power Gen, the national grid and the two Scottish companies. The articles of the companies will restrict individuals and companies from building up a shareholding of more than 15 per cent. That will be reinforced by a special share to be held by the Government.
  Questions have been asked, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, about the effect of the Bill on the conservation of electricity and the environment. A number of hon. Members have raised that issue. The answer is that the Bill is likely to have a highly beneficial effect on conservation and the environment. That is partly because the Director General of Electricity Supply will have a specific statutory duty to promote energy efficiency, partly because access to the system will encourage on to it generators with smaller, less polluting, highly modernised stations—CHP has been mentioned several times in the debate, and of course that will be one source of energy that will be encouraged—and partly because a special arrangement for non-fossil fuel sources will benefit renewable energy such as the Mersey barrage which has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the other barrages, and wind power which has been mentioned on several occasions. I am informed that clause 30 is the first time that wind power has been mentioned specifically in any statute.
  The effect of privatisation on prices was also raised. The Opposition quite falsely have suggested that the privatisation process will raise prices. Our judgment is the reverse. The presence of competition is bound to create greater efficiency in that part of the industry which currently comprises three quarters of its costs—in other words, generation.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister keeps referring to the British electricity supply industry, but how on earth can
  860
  the argument he has just made be applied to the Scottish electricity industry, where there is no competition whatsoever in generation?
  Mr. Spicer: Nine tenths of the industry is English and Welsh electricity. It is worth making that point in the context of all the barracking by Scottish Members. It is rubbish to say that there will be no competition in Scotland and, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall tell him precisely why.
  It is true that the massive investment programme which lies ahead will have to be paid for. In the present circumstances, the bills for that can be shared only between the consumer and the taxpayer. Someone has to pay for this massive investment. In future, the shareholder will join in the risk and, of course, will expect to receive dividends in return for doing so. We shall certainly not permit the supply companies to pass through into prices all the cost increases that they incur. They will therefore have the incentive to contract as efficiently as possible for future generating capacity.
  Several hon. Members have argued that we should not have made special provisions for nuclear power. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not carry on private conversations in the middle of an important speech.
  Mr. Spicer: Some Opposition Members have simply been confused, but I am sure that others have been perverse. The provision that the Government have made for the making of grants, loans and guarantees relates in particular to future costs which the industry could not have been able to forsee, arising, for example, out of changes in Government policy or changes in the policy of the responsible regulator. This would be true, for instance, if a policy were introduced rapidly to speed up the process of decommissioning. The industry will certainly be expected to continue to make full and proper provision for all foreseen decommissioning, reprocessing and waste management costs. It does so at present for England and Wales at a cost of between £2 billion and £3 billion.
  We have said that, while the consumer will pay, as he does now, for the benefits of diversity which nuclear-generated electricity provides, in future—the Opposition have consistently failed to understand this point—he will pay on a transparent basis and not, as now, on the basis of accounts which confuse nuclear and other fuel sources in such a way as to make them unidentifiable.
  We expect—unlike the right hon. Member for Devonport—that the introduction of modern and highly efficient PWRs will lead in time to the need for special treatment for the nuclear industry falling away. It is certainly our desire that all forms of power generation should ultimately compete on the same footing. The argument that coal is being unfairly treated compared with nuclear—the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley—is absurd when one considers the £9 billion of taxpayers' money that has been spent in the past nine years and add to that the enormous amounts—currently running at £550 million a year—which consumers of electricity have been paying, over the odds, for British coal.
  Mr. Barron: The basis of that figure has been widely disputed, even by the CEGB. How much money will be spent on the nuclear levy which the Bill introduces?
  Mr. Spicer: The CEGB's estimate is much higher—the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the figure is disputed. We take a rather modest figure.
  Since the war—this matter is not disputed—the equivalent of £19 billion in today's money has been paid by the taxpayer to the coal industry. To say that the coal industry is being unfairly treated in these circumstances is bizarre.
  The question has been raised as to why Scotland is being treated differently from England and Wales in the Bill. The answer in part is that the vast majority of the Bill covers Scotland, England and Wales identically. The differences apply where the nature and structure of the two industries are different. In England and Wales, nuclear accounts for only 16 per cent. of the electricity produced—
  Mr. Douglas: Come on.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman may know this, but many people have asked this question.
  Mr. Douglas: The Minister, who is a pleasant gentleman, should try to understand that the root of the objection is not that Scotland is being treated differently, but that because it is different it should have a separate Bill.
  Mr. Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland spent a great deal of time explaining that, but perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was not in the Chamber at the time. [Interruption.] I understand that he was. There are some differences. Proportionally, Scotland has four times as much nuclear power as England and Wales, has a vastly greater amount of hydro-electricity and is a different market place. It is clear that we had to cater for some differences north of the border.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, raised the question of safety. I can tell him categorically that the industry will be safe in private hands. All hon. Members accept that safety standards, especially in the nuclear industry, are excellent. They will remain precisely the same after privatisation and nuclear safety will continue to be policed after privatisation by the nuclear installations inspectorate. Some hon. Members have argued that in future the industry is to be too heavily regulated.
  Mr. Orme: The Minister says that nuclear safety will remain in future as it is at present. Will the commission be answerable to Parliament in the way that it is presently answerable?
  Mr. Spicer: Yes, of course it will. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman reminded me about that specific question.
  As I say, some hon. Members have argued that we are to regulate the industry too heavily and other hon. Members have argued just as vehemently that we have put the industry on too loose a rein. The House may therefore feel that we have got it about right. The principle that has guided us has been that those parts of the industry where it is most difficult to inject competition, for instance the grid company and the supply companies, should be the
  862
  most rightly regulated. It is fairly natural for us to do that, but even here the role of regulation will be to bring as much competition into the industry as possible.
  For instance, we expect that the Director General of Electricity Supply will particularly have in mind, in his approach for example to the grid company, the need to allow maximum access to new entrants commensurate with the well-being and safety of the system. On the other hand we think that there is little need for economic regulation at the generating end of the industry.
  Contrary to what the Opposition have said, we think that we will achieve growing and genuine competition by splitting the CEGB into two companies, by allowing distribution companies up to a maximum of 15 per cent. own generation and by encouraging new companies to come in.
  I now turn to the word that the Opposition dare not speak—renationalisation. In answer to questions yesterday from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and for Rochford, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said of the electricity industry:
  "When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not be run for private profit."
  Later, when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford, he said:
  "We will reinstate it as a proper public service under public control."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 689-696.]
  I must ask him what that means. If it is Socialist yuppy-speak for renationalisation, then one day I suspect that he will be bound to have to tell the electorate the terms on which he will buy out the shareholders, particularly those shareholders who are also employees of the industry. If he does not mean renationalisation and is just putting up token opposition, I must tell him that we understand—it is what he is there to do—but I fear that it will not exactly improve his credibility.
  I refer next to what has perhaps been the essential thrust of the Opposition's Front Bench attack on the Bill in the past few days. Opposition Members have argued that, under the terms of the Bill, there will be insufficient competition. At least, that is what I understood the hon. Member for Sedgefield to imply. In bringing competition into the forefront of the debate, Opposition Members have taken the debate on to our territory, and for that we must be grateful.
  I am not sure what the Labour party knows about competition. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Sedgefield said:
  "The truth is that there is no competitive pressure in this structure at the point of consumption, which is the only competitive pressure that matters."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 692.]
  When, as in the case of electricity, three quarters of costs are at the point of production, that is manifest nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He does not believe it himself—he is grinning. Of course he cannot believe that competition in three quarters of the industry has no effect on the consumer—[Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield says that the consumer does not pay. The consumer ultimately pays the costs. He is saying that, because we cannot have 100 per cent. perfect competition, we should have no competition. That is precisely what he and other Opposition Members have said throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Rother Valley is nodding his head.
  Mr. Barron: The Opposition simply say that, in 1983, the Government brought in an Energy Act that was to introduce the same competition, and it singularly failed, and we are arguing about that here tonight.
  Mr. Spicer: Conservative Members would go some way with the hon. Gentleman. It is interesting that we are having this discussion about whether we have given enough competition. That is a perfectly reasonable debating ground, and we are delighted to have it. The 1983 Act, for various reasons—notably that the CEGB was left as a monopoly—did not work. That is why we are bringing in this replacement. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1983 Act. Of course we were not pleased with it. It was a step in the right direction, but it was not far enough. It left a monopoly in place, and that monopoly, in effect, was able to control the rules.
  We say that where we cannot have perfect competition, we should regulate to protect the interests of the consumer. The truth is that, philosophically, a member of the Labour party—whether or not he is a member of the new yuppy Labour party—would not know a consumer if he saw one. The Labour party owes its very existence to producer interests. One never hears about common ownership of the means of consumption. Socialism was founded on the unholy alliance between producers and trade unions. The market place simply does not feature in Opposition Members' thinking. The truth is that the interests of the consumer are the essence of the Bill which, for the first time, imposes an obligation on the industry to supply all consumers, unless it is technically impractical to do so.
  The consumer will not only benefit directly if some three quarters of his costs are subject to the force of competition, but he will have the chance, if that is what he wishes, to buy his electricity from an alternative supply company. The hon. Member for Rother Valley was wrong about that.
  It has been said that the Bill is radical. That is precisely right. It is extremely radical. To change the whole emphasis of an immense utility away from one that is dominated by a single producer towards one that reflects the interests of the customer is an enormously ambitious undertaking. We are under no illusions about that. For the time being it may not appeal to the myopic imagination of the Opposition, bent on driving this country back into the past, but I am sure that it will receive the support of the mass of the country.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 316.

  Division No. 12]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Alton, David

  Blair, Tony

  Anderson, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barron, Kevin

  Buchan, Norman

  Beckett, Margaret

  Buckley, George J.

  Beggs, Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  864

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clay, Bob

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kilfedder, James

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Corbett, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lambie, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Lamond, James

  Cox, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crowther, Stan

  Leighton, Ron

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cummings, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Litherland, Robert

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dalyell, Tam

  Livsey, Richard

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dobson, Frank

  McFall, John

  Doran, Frank

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Douglas, Dick

  McKelvey, William

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McNamare, Kevin

  Eadie, Alexander

  McTaggart, Bob

  Eastham, Ken

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morley, Elliott

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Nellist, Dave

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pendry, Tom

  Haynes, Frank

  Pike, Peter L.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Prescott, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Radice, Giles

  Holland, Stuart

  Randall, Stuart

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hoyle, Doug

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Robertson, George

  865

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wall, Pat

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Short, Clare

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sillars, Jim

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Gavin

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alexander, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Cash, William

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amess, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amos, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Critchley, Julian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Benyon, W.

  Davies, David (Boothferry)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Day, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dicks, Terry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Tony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Favell, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Butler, Chris

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Butterfill, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Freeman, Roger

  866

  French, Douglas

  Lilley, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gardiner, George

  Lord, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maclean, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hannam, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mellor, David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Harris, David

  Mills, Iain

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Heddle, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hill, James

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Holt, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Irvine, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irving, Charles

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jack, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Janman, Tim

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Key, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Renton, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lang, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  867

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waller, Gary

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ward, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tracey, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Trotter, Neville

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Viggers, Peter

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Michael Fallon and

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 238.

  Division No. 13]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alexander, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert

  Burns, Simon

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butcher, John

  Amos, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Atkinson, David

  Cash, William

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chope, Christopher

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Churchill, Mr

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Colvin, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Conway, Derek

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Critchley, Julian

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Day, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Dicks, Terry

  Bright, Graham

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Dunn, Bob

  868

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knowles, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Franks, Cecil

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  French, Douglas

  Lilley, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gardiner, George

  Lord, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maclean, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Mellor, David

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Hayward, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heddle, John

  Morris, M (N'hamptpon S)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hill, James

  Mudd, David

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Holt, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Paice, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Irving, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  869

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'health)

  Price, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Raffan, Keith

  Tredinnick, Daivd

  Redwood, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stevens, Lewis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and

  Mr. Michael Fallon

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Coleman, Donald

  Alton, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cox, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Crowther, Stan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beggs, Roy

  Darling, Alistair

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dixon, Don

  Blair, Tony

  Dobson, Frank

  Blunkett, David

  Doran, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Douglas, Dick

  Bradley, Keith

  Duffy, A.E.P.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Buckley, George J.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fearn, Ronald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flannery, Martin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Foster, Derek

  Clay, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Clelland, David

  Fraser, John

  870

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morley, Elliott

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Nellist, Dave

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pendry, Tom

  Haynes, Frank

  Pike, Peter L.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Prescott, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Radice, Giles

  Holland, Stuart

  Randall, Stuart

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hoyle, Doug

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ingram, Adam

  Ruddock, Joan

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles

  Short, Clare

  Kilfedder, James

  Sillars, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lambie, David

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Lamond, James

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snape, Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Soley, Clive

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Litherland, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stott, Roger

  Livsey, Richard

  Strand, Gavin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Straw, Jack

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McAllion, John

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Turner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McKelvey, William

  Wall, Pat

  McLeish, Henry

  Wallace, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McWilliam, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Martlew, Eric

  Wray, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Meacher, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michael, Alun

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Mr. Robert Wareing

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made—[Mr. Lofthouse]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.
  The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 299.

  Division No. 14]

  [10.31 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Alton, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foster, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fraser, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beith, A. J.

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  George, Bruce

  Blair, Tony

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blunkett, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Boyes, Roland

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Keith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buckley, George J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Callaghan, Jim

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Holland, Stuart

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clay, Bob

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Ieuan (ynys Môn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfedder, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lambie, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Lamond, James

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Litherland, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  872

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Rowlands, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  McTaggart, Bob

  Salmond, Alex

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sillars, Jim

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Gavin

  Morley, Elliott

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Mullin, Chris

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Nellist, Dave

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wall, Pat

  O'Brien, William

  Wallace, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pike, Peter L.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Prescott, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winnick, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Radice, Giles

  Worthington, Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Wray, Jimmy

  Redmond, Martin

  Yong, David (Bolton SE)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Reid, Dr John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Richardson, Jo

  Mr Allen McKay and

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amos, Alan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bright, Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Atkinson, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burns, Simon

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterrfill, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  873

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Janman, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Knox, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lang, Ian

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lightbown, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Lilley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, George

  McCrindle, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maclean, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, sir Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, David

  Gorst, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maples, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Gregory, Conal

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grist, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grylls, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mills, Iain

  Hannam, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Harris, David

  Moate, Roger

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heddle, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  874

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Paice, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pawsey, James

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waldenm, George

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ward, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Raffan, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Redwood, John

  Watts, John

  Renton, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Scott, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Woodcock, Mike

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stevens, Lewis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mr. Michael Fallon and

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates &c.) to put at that hour.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1988–89
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,042,249,000, be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1989, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 690 of Session 1987–88.

  ESTIMATES 1989–90 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £50,987,976,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 691, 692 and 661 of Session 1987–88.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the

  875
  service of the years ending on 31 March 1989 and 1990; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Electricity Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—
  (a) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to, the Director General of Electricity Supply and any staff of the Director, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as the Director and any expenses duly incurred by the Director or by any of his staff in consequence of the provisions of the Act;
  (b) the remuneration of the chairman of a consumers' committee, any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to such a chairman or to other members of such a committee, any other sums so payable to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as such a chairman, any sums so payable to members of a sub-committee of such a committee and any expenses incurred by such a committee;
  (c) sums payable under the Act to persons who, immediately before the Electricity Consumers' Council and the Consultative Councils established under section 7 or 7A of the Electricity Act 1947 cease to exist by virtue of the Act, are the chairman or other officers of those Councils;
  (d) expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in acquiring securities of a successor company or rights to subscribe for any such securities;
  (e) sums required by the Secretary of State for paying remuneration and travelling or other allowances to persons on whom duties with respect to the preparation and auditing of statements of accounts are imposed by order under the Act;
  (f) sums payable under the Act to or in respect of persons who immediately before the transfer date are the chairman or other members or are employees of the existing bodies;
  (g) sums required by the Secretary of State for paying grants to the existing bodies;
  (h) the remuneration of, and any other allowances payable under the Act to, meter examiners and any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of such examiners;
  (i) expenses reasonably incurred by the Fisheries Committee appointed under section 5(2) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 and continued in existence by the Act;
  (j) sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants or loans towards nuclear expenditure, or for fulfilling guarantees given by the Secretary of State in respect of sums borrowed from a person other than the Secretary of State for the purpose of meeting such expenditure, so long as the aggregate of any grants so made and of any amounts outstanding by way of principal in respect of loans so made and of sums paid in fulfilment of guarantees so given shall not exceed £1,000 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,500 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify;
  (k) administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Treasury in consequence of the provisions of the Act;
  (l) increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;
  (2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of—
  (a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to successor companies in England and Wales which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, so long as the aggregate of any amounts outstanding by way of principal in respect of such loans shall not exceed £400 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £600 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify;
  878
  (b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to successor companies in Scotland which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, so long as the aggregate of any amounts outstanding by way of principal in respect of relevant loans and sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by such companies from persons other than the Secretary of State shall not exceed £3,000 million;
  (c) any sums which, by virtue of the Act, are payable under section 5 of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1955 in respect of unclaimed interest of redemption money on British Electricity Stock or North of Scotland Electricity Stock;
  (3) the reduction of the assets of the National Loans Fund by amounts corresponding to such liabilities of a successor company in Scotland in respect of relevant loans as the Secretary of State may by order extinguish;
  (4) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given by them in respect of sums borrowed from persons other than the Secretary of State by successor companies in Scotland which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown;
  (5) the transfer to the Treasury of all rights and liabilities of the Electricity Council in respect of British Electricity Stock and all rights and liabilities of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in respect of North of Scotland Electricity Stock.
  In this Resolution—
  "existing body", "successor company" and "transfer date" have the same meanings as in Part II of the Act;
  "nuclear expenditure" means expenditure incurred by any person in connection with the storage or reprocessing of nuclear fuel, the treatment, storage or disposal of nuclear waste or the decommissioning of any nuclear installation:
  "relevant loan", in relation to a successor company in Scotland, means—

  (a) any loan made, or deemed to have been made, by the Secretary of State or from the National Loans Fund the liability to repay which vests in that company by virtue of the Act;

  (b) any loan made to that company by the Secretary of State; and

  (c) any sums payable under debentures issued as a consequence of the making of an order under the Act extinguishing any liabilities of that company.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  10.45 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This money resolution is something to which the House should give serious attention, because it is being asked to vote through a sum in excess of £6 billion, and it will not be appropriate to let such a major item pass without raising a number of questions.
  A high proportion of the sum required of the taxpayer will be used to obviate nuclear power costs. It is difficult to establish precisely how much, but a figure of £2·5 billion is specifically identified in relation to nuclear power, with another £3 billion for the Scottish electricity debt conversion—most of which is due to Scotland's substantial nuclear capacity and its associated debt. It means that the taxpayer is being asked substantially to underwrite both debts incurred and yet to be incurred, to that level.
  One or two other matters should be covered by the Bill, and one is bound to ask whether the money resolution is adequate, given that large sums of money are specifically earmarked.
  Concern has been expressed about the Bill's implications for low income groups and the threat of disconnections. Schedule 6 deals with disconnections but

  879
  does not make it clear that protection will be provided in cases of hardship. It states that an electricity company may disconnect a customer whose bill has not been paid within 15 days of receipt of a demand for payment. That provision is unqualified, and the House will want to ensure that the protection against disconnection in cases of hardship that exists in the present regime will be continued in the Bill, and that provision for that will be made by the taxpayer—which seems not inappropriate-or that a clear indication is given that such protection will be given by the electricity companies.
  Another matter of considerable concern in many quarters is the lack of any obligation under the proposed legislation to provide a supply. That means that, if the social clause observed by the Hydro Board in areas such as the north of Scotland is removed, new developments in the Highlands may be placed at risk. Although the board may say that 99·9 per cent. of existing customers are connected, many will not have been. Under existing legislation, there is an obligation to supply them, too. There could be new developments in remote locations which, under the new legislation, may be denied the rights of access that currently exist.
  One is entitled to ask what provision will be made either to require the companies taking over from the existing boards to provide such a guarantee, and, if necessary, for public funding to underwrite it. If public funding can be provided on such a lavish scale to underwrite the Government's political objectives, and their strategic objectives in terms of nuclear power, one would like to think that the interests of low income groups and of developments in remote areas will be similarly protected. It is worth reminding the House that people on low incomes spend on average between 15 to 25 per cent. of their incomes on heating and lighting, compared with the national average of 6 to 7 per cent.
  A number of complaints have been expressed to me by industries that are high users of energy. I freely admit that the paper industry is very important to my constituency, and it has suffered badly from the privatisation of British Gas: in its own words, the industry in the last four years has been ripped of shamefully by a monopoly that has now been properly called to account, as we said it would have to be. Having suffered that, the industry now fears that it will face a similar problem with the privatisation of electricity.
  Many companies are committed at present to investing in combined heat and power systems, but fear that the changed circumstances could prevent that from being viable. After all, as the Minister has told us, the Scottish electricity industry has 100 per cent. over-capacity, and appears to be prepared to undercut any other competitive supplier to any level to try to ensure that the maximum connection is maintained—although that is not in the wider national interest in terms of energy efficiency, competitiveness or indeed conservation. Such factors should either be explained in the Bill or provided for in the money resolution.
  Given that the Bill is likely to become law, and privatisation is likely to go ahead, I make a plea on behalf of companies in my constituency—which I know have applied to be put on the shortlist before—that they be given the opportunity to supply the paper for the prospectuses. That might help to mollify them after the way they have suffered through increased energy costs in both the past and the proposed legislation.
  880
  The Bill fails on two counts, and the money resolution does not provide for any adequate coverage. First, contrary to what the Minister has said, the Bill substantially reduces the industry's commitment. to promote energy conservation. Clause 3(3)(b) lays down a requirement for the director general and the Secretary of State
  "to promote efficiency and economy on the part of such persons and the efficient use of electricity supplied by them".
  That is far from a strong commitment to promote energy conservation. Energy conservation and the interests of the environment will not be served by the market; they are the Government's responsibility. We need from the Government a clear indication of how they will ensure that the privatised industry will genuinely attend to such matters, and the money resolution should have made provision for any associated costs.
  The regulator proposed in the Bill is funded and staffed entirely inadequately, given the job that he is expected to do in an industry that has been completely reorganised and is extremely complex. The money resolution should have provided more money for the director general, who should have additional powers which would certainly require extra funds. He should have the power to set tariffs, or at least the company should have to apply to him for their approval. He should also have the power to approve major capital investment. He should have the power to direct companies in a way that is beneficial to the environment, and also to direct them to take action to promote energy efficiency and conservation. In pursuit of those aims, he should have the power to set up public hearings at which interested bodies could question the protagonists. All that requires considerably more money and staff than the Bill provides for.
  But the most offensive thing about the money resolution is that the House is being asked to vote through at least £6 billion of taxpayers' money to finance a flotation for which the Government have totally failed to make a case. The real motivation is to secure, at the expense of £6 billion of taxpayers' money, the £20 billion proceeds that the Government expect to get to bribe their way through the next election. The House should not allow that blatant misuse of taxpayers' money to pass unchallenged. The money resolution is the biggest that I have known to come before the House. I find it quite extraordinary that the Government can expect it to pass without debate and without proper attention being drawn to those important matters.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Before allowing the money resolution to pass, given the vast sums involved, we should pursue the Government's financial intentions as to the future of the Bill. I particularly want to know whether they will have the brass neck to ask electricity consumers to purchase shares in the new privatised organisations.
  The array of assets owned by the electricity companies have been financed out of the bills paid by electricity consumers. Although the industry has substantial capital debt, nothing in the money resolution states that that debt definitely will be offset. Therefore, if that is the Government's intention it seems unreasonable to charge people to buy the assets to which they have already contributed as electricity consumers.

  881
  The Government do not have to charge people for the distribution of shares. They have a precedent in that the TSB effectively was stolen from its depositors. The industry was privatised and the money was put back into the industry instead of going to the Treasury. Have the Government considered that course? More reasonably, have they considered giving a free distribution of shares to electricity consumers? If the aim and intention of the Bill was to encourage share ownership, the Government might actively be considering a free distribution of shares to electricity consumers who have financed the assets which they will be asked to buy.
  If the Government show no sign of taking any such action, I shall be led to the unworthy conclusion that the money resolution will provide two slush finds—a slush fund for the nuclear industry, which has been mentioned in the debate, and a slush fund for the Government to use the money taken from electricity consumers for the assets for which they have already paid through their electricity bills, for the Government's own political purposes in their attempts to win future elections.
  10.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) finally got yesterday's speech off his chest. Although he kept mentioning the money resolution and asked some questions, most of the questions he raised are not covered by the money resolution. In his final peroration he mentioned the staffing for the director general. We believe that £10 million is certainly adequate to cover his various statutory obligations, in particular the two that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understood the Bill sufficiently when he raised the question of energy efficiency. The Bill places a statutory obligation on the director general to further the interests of energy efficiency. He specifically mentioned CHP. Again, the Bill gives the director general specific powers to ensure that there is full and fair access of all forms of electricity to the system. We believe that we have adequately staffed for those items.
  The obligation to supply is quite clear. Whereas at the moment there is no absolute obligation to supply outside the 50 yd from the mains limit, under the Bill every single consumer in Scotland, or anywhere else in Britain will have the right to be connected, unless there is a very specific technical reason why he cannot be connected.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On that very point, is the charge to consumers provided for in the Bill likely to be as it is now under the nationalised boards, when consumers are asked to pay as much as £10,000 to be connected to the mains supply?
  Mr. Spicer: That is a very good question. The costs must be reasonable. The director general will act in an arbitration role. If a company could charge arbitrary high costs and thus discriminate against certain consumers, that would be wrong. There are ways in which such matters can be arbitrated.
  The final point made by the hon. Member for Gordon in his finishing-up of yesterday's speech was about disconnection. The Bill makes it clear that, where a right to disconnect exists, the supplier must give 15 working
  882
  days for payment and two days' notice before disconnection. Once the cause of the disconnection has been removed, the supplier will have to reconnect within two working days. Therefore, there will be a tightening up.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised an almost incomprehensible question. I think he asked whether we were going to exclude electricity consumers as buyers of shares. I have said that the obligation will be upon companies to sell electricity to all domestic customers, so the answer must be no.
  Mr. Salmond: Perhaps I can explain my point to the Minister. The question is not whether shares will be sold to consumers but whether they will be charged for shares in assets for which they have already paid through their electricity bills. I argue that the Government are asking people to pay twice for the same thing. I gave the example of the Trustee Savings bank, which was privatised, when another course was taken.
  Mr. Spicer: As everyone will be a consumer, it would be crazy to give special discounts to everyone. That would be an extraordinary proposition. I thought that I had understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, and I find that I did. I hope that I have answered hon. Members' specific questions.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 19.

  Division No. 15]

  [11.2 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Amess, David

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Amos, Alan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Franks, Cecil

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowis, John

  French, Douglas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gorst, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butcher, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grist, Ian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cash, William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Chope, Christopher

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Heddle, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  883

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Knapman, Roger

  Raffan, Keith

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Redwood, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Knox, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lord, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Mans, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Marlow, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Waller, Gary

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Watts, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Mills, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Yeo, Tim

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

  Neale, Gerrard

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  Neubert, Michael

  884

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Beith, A. J.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Cryer, Bob

  Wallace, James

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Fearn, Ronald

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Andy

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Kirkwood, and

  Kennedy, Charles

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce

  Livsey, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the inclusion in licences granted under that Act of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State or the Director General of Electricity Supply;
  (2) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the taxation of successor companies within the meaning of Part II of that Act;
  (3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Iron Casting (Scientific Research Levy) (Abolition) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 24th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
    Question agreed to.

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 9th November 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
    Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. Tim Yeo be discharged from the Social Services Committee and Mrs. Marion Roe and Ann Widdecombe be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  No-fault Compensation
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise several issues in tonight's Adjournment debate, in particular an issue relating to one of my constituents, Mrs. Maclntyre.
  For over 20 years, Mrs. Maclntyre has been suffering from what was diagnosed as a psychiatric problem. In that period, she twice attempted suicide. It was a difficult and traumatic time for her, her husband and her family. In 1983, Mrs. Maclntyre saw another doctor, who diagnosed her as suffering from a form of thyroid disorder. He prescribed another form of drug, During the same year, however, Mrs. Maclntyre decided to stop taking all the medication that she had been prescribed, and she recovered almost immediately. Since 1983, she has not suffered from the depression that had afflicted her during the previous 20 years.
  Mr. and Mrs. Maclntyre have tried to pursue this matter through the courts as a case for compensation because of wrongful diagnosis. The court case took more than five years, and at the end of it, Mrs. Maclntyre had not progressed much further. The independent medical opinion and legal advice that she received concluded that she would be unable to prove her case in the courts. Therefore, she would be unable to receive compensation even though it was recognised by her independent advisers that it was quite likely that, "for an indeterminate period", as one specialist put it, she had been prescribed a drug for which there was no need. It was also suggested that there was a possible case on the grounds that her doctors did not know exactly what she was being treated for, or when the illnesses from which it was claimed she was suffering were resolved. One doctor said that those illnesses had resolved themselves.
  Mr. and Mrs. Maclntyre and their barrister believe that it is a remarkable coincidence that all the symptoms from which she was suffering ended when she stopped taking the drugs prescribed. At one time, Mrs. Maclntyre went from becoming obese to becoming extremely thin because of rapid weight gain and loss brought on by her drugs.
  Under our present law, the only way in which Mrs. Maclntyre can receive compensation is to prove that there was negligence on the part of the doctors who treated her, in particular Dr. Harding-Price, who diagnosed the thyroid problem and who specified the prescription of certain drugs. It is most unlikely that such negligence could be proved in court, so a stalemate has been reached because Mrs. Maclntyre can no longer receive legal aid after five years and therefore the case cannot proceed.
  That lady has suffered an injustice, but there is no further way in which she can pursue her case or claim. Some countries, such as Sweden and New Zealand, have a fund that would resolve that problem, known as a no-fault compensation fund. The idea is that people who can prove that they are victims of wrongful diagnosis, wrongful medical treatment or treatment that accidentally went wrong, can apply to the fund and receive compensation on a fixed scale depending upon the amount of inconvenience suffered or damage caused.
  886
  There are many advantages attached to such a scheme. For example, it cuts the lengthy time that people must spend attempting to receive compensation. Mrs. Maclntyre is not alone in having to go through lengthy, drawn-out legal battles. Those battles are extremely expensive because of lawyers' fees. The fund also removes the confrontational nature of such claims, in which where the victim must prove the criminal negligence of the doctor who may have treated him. We need a system under which people can receive compensation quickly and efficiently.
  That scheme could also apply to the case of another constituent of mine, a district nurse. That lady was injured when she restrained a patient who was having a fit. That patient cannot, of course, be held responsible for the injuries she suffered. She will receive the minimum compensation, and sick and invalidity benefits as laid down by the state, but she will not receive the compensation to which she believes she is entitled, a belief I wholeheartedly endorse.
  If we had a system of no-fault compensation, this lady could also apply to the fund, and because she would only have to demonstrate the injuries that she had received, she could get compensation without going through lengthy court proceedings and without proving who was directly responsible.
  The Swedish system is confined to cases of medical negligence. The New Zealand system goes further and includes compensation for the victims of road traffic accidents, for example. I ask the Minister to consider such issues carefully. Many victims of road accidents—and sometimes of hit-and-run accidents for which it has not been possible to find the culprits—have found that it has taken years to settle their claims for compensation. Their cases have been dragged through the courts at great expense and with great delay, and in the end the only ones to suffer have been the victims themselves.
  It would be to the advantage not only of individuals but of the insurance companies to co-operate with the Government in finding the money for such a scheme. I do not pretend that it would be cheap, but there are advantages in cutting down the legal fees that result from going through solicitors.
  I understand that part of the problem in cases of medical compensation, such as that of Mrs. Maclntyre, is that there are only about 50 or 60 firms of solicitors in the country with the detailed experience to pursue such claims through the courts. That has caused some people to have great difficulty in pursuing their cases through the courts —they have argued that they got far less compensation than they were entitled to because of their solicitors' inexperience.
  One such case is that of a gentleman who suffered brain damage in a hospital because the respirator was blocked. He was advised to accept a £2,000 settlement, but his family pursued the matter through the courts and received an award of £490,000 after many years of expense and much suffering.
  I put these points to the Minister in a positive way because I am trying to be helpful. Mrs. Maclntyre's problem is that there is no solution to her case under our law. There is no way in which she can take her case further, even though there is considerable evidence that she and her family suffered a great deal for 20 years. With a no-fault compensation fund, she could receive some compensation for her suffering without going through lengthy legal proceedings, and many thousands like her could get

  887
  compensation without pointing the finger at individual doctors and holding them responsible for what may have been genuine accidents.
  As I said, perhaps the fund could be extended to cover many other groups. It would work more efficiently; it would deal with deserving cases more quickly; and in the long run it would be a much more civilised way of dealing with tragic cases.
  11.23 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on raising once again, in the form of the cases of the constituents that he mentioned, part of the subject which was so carefully addressed more than 10 years ago in the Pearson report.
  On behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Maclntyre, the hon. Gentleman told a tale of frustration based on a perceived and no doubt much-felt injury or suffering for which no fault can be established against any individual, and for which a no-fault scheme of compensation is seen by some people, and urged by the hon. Gentleman, as a possible answer.
  It is believed by the hon. Gentleman and others that a scheme such as applies in Sweden or New Zealand might serve his constituents and other people in this country better than our present system, but it is not entirely clear that it would do so, as I shall explain in some detail. It may help to explain the current state of the law in this field and to look back at the Pearson report and what it recommended, and to look forward—this will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the nation at large —to some of the recommendations of the civil justice review which reported last year and is likely to be implemented in the comparatively near future.
  I should tell the House first that the Pearson commission drew attention to a number of popular misconceptions about the concept of no-fault schemes. It commented that it had found a widespread ignorance of the fact that in this country we already have a considerable element of no-fault provision and that there has been no-fault provision on quite a considerable scale since the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
  A person who has been injured may look immediately to the medical benefits provided by the National Health Service, whether medical care is needed in the short term only or for an extended period. If the injury is sufficiently serious to prevent an immediate return to normal life, a large range of benfits and services may be available to him or her, including social security allowances and benefits such as mobility and attendance allowances, industrial disablement benefit for people injured at work, severe disablement allowance for disabled people who are unable to work, as well as invalidity benefit for sick people unable to work and local authority social service provision of a number of kinds.
  However, I wish to turn specifically, as did the hon. Gentleman, to the question of medical accident and injuries that have been sustained, or are perceived to have been sustained, in the course of an illness or the medical treatment that accompanied that illness. The Pearson commission carefully considered the case for alternative methods of compensating those who suffer medical accidents. Two of its recommendations were to the effect that, with one exception, the basis of liability in tort for
  888
  medical injuries should continue to be negligence and that a no-fault scheme for medical accidents should not be introduced. The report also said that the progress of the two different no-fault schemes in operation in Sweden and New Zealand, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, should also be studied and assessed.
  These issues have been kept under review, as have the overseas schemes. It is notable that, at the time of the Pearson report, the view of the medical profession, as expressed by the British Medical Association, was firmly opposed to a no-fault scheme, on the grounds that such a scheme might undermine the independence of the profession, particularly by obliging doctors and surgeons to defer to their employers, the health authorities.
  However, there has been some shift in the view of the profession since then and it may therefore first be helpful to summarise the arguments considered by the Pearson commission when it decided not to recommend the introduction of a no-fault system for medical accidents.
  The commission looked first at the cost of a no-fault system. The costs involved are inherently difficult to assess precisely, but, if the scale of the compensation envisaged were to be anything like that applicable when negligence is established under our present scheme, the costs would undoubtedly be higher.
  The commission considered that the second main difficulty in the way of the scheme was how to establish causation—this is highly relevant to the case of Mrs. Maclntyre which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman—because it is by no means always possible to identify the cause of an injury. There will frequently be difficulty in distinguishing medical accident from either the natural progress of a disease or from a possible side effect of treatment. A no-fault scheme might seem to effect an improvement by achieving equal treatment of all parties suffering injury as a result of accident, but, in a significant number of cases, it would be seen to operate no less unfairly than a fault-based scheme in making a new distinction between accident cases and natural progression cases.
  One of the features of the Swedish experience seemed to call for a precise definition of what is meant by medical accident. Lawyers among us will remember the great degree of attention which was given under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to the meaning of
  "in the course of employment."
  It is that sort of question, when related to medical accidents, which necessarily has to be asked unless we are to introduce a scheme which compensates everyone for any degree of suffering howsoever caused, and no one has proposed that.
  The Pearson commission noted in its review of foreign practice that the Swedish experience at that time was that one claim failed for every two that succeeded. High cost has always been an important factor in the operation of the New Zealand no-fault accident compensation scheme. The scheme, which came into existence in 1974, provides rehabilitation and income-related benefits. These are financed largely by levies on employers, the self-employed and the owners of motor cars, for disabilities resulting from accidents. The scheme is not limited to medical injuries and covers all accidents. However, the New Zealand Law Commission has recently referred to
  "unexpected and considerable increases in costs in real terms."

  889
  The New Zealand scheme applies only to disabilities that are the result of accidents, and the very definition of that term appears to have caused frequent litigation on its application in certain cases. Disabilities caused by accident in New Zealand in the course of medical, surgical and dental procedures are expressly included within the definition of personal injury by accident, but compensation is generally refused when the disability results from the known risks of the medical procedure in question. To many patients, however, such disabilities must seem to be no less the product of an accident.
  The Swedish scheme is a voluntary one that is operated by a consortium of health companies under an agreement with the health care authorities and health professions, which pay the premiums. The scheme does not compensate for injuries that are the normal outcome of a disease. There is no compensation for injuries that are unavoidable complications of treatment selected for proper medical reasons, unless it can be shown that the patient could have been treated effectively in another way. It is notable that the average level of awards under the scheme is just over £2,000.
  I am sorry that I must present a somewhat depressing catalogue of comments on the Swedish and New Zealand schemes. They have been carefully studied, and we shall continue to study them. I am not sure that they offer as much practical satisfaction to those who find themselves in the categories which have been outlined by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe as might first have been thought.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: My hon. and learned Friend may remember that, on 17 December 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General answered a debate which I initiated on the Pearson commission's report. My right hon. and learned Friend suggested that a working party might be set up, consisting of members of the British Medical Association and the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, to consider another form of compensation scheme. Has any progress been made with the working party?
  The Solicitor-General: I do not think that I can answer my hon. Friend's question. I am sorry that I am not immediately aware of the answer, though I did re-read my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to the debate which was initiated by my hon. Friend, as my hon. Friend has been a leading proponent of further study of these matters. I undertake to ascertain what the position is and to write to him.
  I hope that what I go on to say provides slightly more hope in respect of dealing with the final matters dealt with by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, which were the difficulties of carrying forward litigation.
  The principal criticism of the tort-based system in this country has been the delay, cost and complexity of civil proceedings. I know something about medical negligence cases, because I used to act in them. There have been many
  890
  real improvements in many respects over the past 10 years, but we believe that we could go further. In early 1985, the civil justice review was set up to improve the machinery of justice in England and Wales by means of reforming jurisdiction procedure in court administration and in particular to reduce delay, cost and complexity. The review body's report was published in the summer and it contained many recommendations offering the possibility of improvements throughout civil justice for the benefit of all litigants. Some of the recommendations relate exclusively to personal injury claims. The report has been put out to consultation and has received urgent consideration in Government Departments, and the Government have given the proposals a high priority.
  Several procedural reforms are recommended in the report as a means of reducing delay. In particular, the review recommends a new system of court control of case progress which would impose time limits on litigants and their solicitors from the stage at which an action becomes defended. Measures would also be taken to cut down delay before proceedings are commenced. For cases going to full trial, the review recommends further steps to speed up the hearing; compulsory pre-trial exchange of witness statements; and greater reliance on written rather than oral evidence, with an opportunity for the judge to read relevant material before the trial.
  Further proposals designed to reduce delays, specifically in personal injury cases generally, include early release of accident reports by police and of medical reports by hospitals. As a means of making progress in protracted cases, it is recommended that the court should have power of its own motion to order a split trial in which the issue of liability is tried separately and in advance of the issue of damages.
  The review recommends that smaller personal injury cases—up to £1,000—should be referred to arbitration by a county court registrar under the simplified small claims procedure. That would cut out legal costs in such cases and ensure that they were speedily disposed of.
  Among the further recommendations of the review body was a recommendation relating to further exploration of no-fault compensation possibilities in a specific context which is different from that referred to by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe and by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), but it may nevertheless be of interest. It proposed that further consideration should be given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the insurance industry to the feasibility of a no-fault scheme for less serious road accidents funded by private insurance. The review recognised a number of advantages of setting up such a scheme which would reduce pressure on the court system.
  The Lord Chancellor is carefully considering that and other aspects of the civil justice review report and expects to make an announcement soon. Although he cannot give a precise date, he hopes to do so early in the new year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre facilities in Wales were used to have poll tax forms for Scotland prepared for dispatch; and what was the role of Bowie Systems.

  Mr. Lang
  The arrangements made by community charges registration officers are a matter for them.

  Employment Training
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) young males and (b) young females are unemployed in (i) Scotland, (ii) Strathclyde region, (iii) Glasgow district and (iv) Shettleston constituency; and how many unfilled YTS places are available to (1) young males and (2) young females in each of these areas.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of male and female unemployed claimants under the age of 18 on 13 October 1988 (the latest date for which information is available) in each of the areas requested is shown in the table.

  Unemployed claimants under 18

  Area

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Scotland

  617

  444

  1,061

  Strathclyde region

  325

  227

  552

  Glasgow district

  130

  109

  239

  Shettleston parliamentary constituency

  15

  10

  25

  On 5 December 1988 (the latest date for which an overall Scottish total is available) there were 13,000 unfilled YTS places.

  Separate details of unfilled YTS places for individual constituencies are not available and the latest date for which a detailed breakdown of the number of unfilled places is available is 4 November 1988. On that date, the numbers of unfilled YTS places were as follows:

  Number

  Scotland

  12,227

  Strathclyde region

  5,072

  Glasgow (training agency area office)

  2,000

  Places on YTS are open to both male and female, as the training agency is fully committed to equal opportunities.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trainees are on employment training in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  There were 19,818 trainees participating in employment training in Scotland at 7 December 1988.
  486
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approved YTS places are available in Scotland; and how many of those aged 16 and 17 years were on YTS on the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Lang
  At 31 October 1988, the latest date for which complete information is available, there were 63,463 YTS places in Scotland, of which 13,425 were unfilled. On the same date 50,038 young people were on YTS. A small number of 18-year-olds are included in this figure as it is not possible to exclude these without disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Orthotists
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many orthotists there are in Scotland; and how many orthotists there are in Scotland per 100,000 people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 25 orthotists employed by the NHS in Scotland at 30 September 1987, representing 0·5 per 100,000 population. Orthotists are also employed by private firms in Scotland, but their number is not collected centrally.

  Prosthetists
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosthetists there are in Scotland; and how many amputees there are in Scotland per prosthetist.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 23 prosthetists employed by the NHS and private firms in Scotland at 30 November 1988 (excluding trainees and orbital prosthetists), equivalent to 296 amputees per prosthetist.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the schools which receive pupils paid for in whole or in part under the assisted places scheme, and the number of assisted place pupils each school had in 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  School

  Number of assisted pupils

  Albyn School for Girls, Aberdeen

  15

  Belmont House School, Newton Mearns

  17

  Craigholme School for Girls, Glasgow

  130

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville College, Edinburgh

  560

  Mary Erskine School, Edinburgh

  George Watson's College, Edinburgh

  Dollar Academy

  57

  Edinburgh Academy

  137

  Fernhill School, Glasgow

  42

  Fettes College, Edinburgh

  28

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  43

  George Heriot's School, Edinburgh

  1221

  Glasgow Academy

  42

  Glenalmond College, Perthshire

  135

  Gordonstoun School, Morayshire

  22

  The High School of Dundee

  1170

  High School of Glasgow

  58

  Hutchesons' Grammar School, Glasgow

  1147

  Keil School, Dumbarton

  57

  Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow

  54

  Kilgraston, (Convent of the Sacred Heart)

  51

  Kilquhanity House School, Castle Douglas

  17

  487

  School

  Number of assisted pupils

  Laurel Bank School, Castle Douglas

  159

  Lomond School, Helensburgh

  43

  Loretto School, Musselburgh

  23

  Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh

  49

  Morrisons Academy, Crieff

  1155

  The Park School, Glasgow

  53

  Rannoch School, Perthshire

  25

  Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen

  154

  Rudolf Steiner School of Edinburgh

  58

  St. Aloysius' College, Glasgow

  137

  St. Columba's, Kilmacolm, Renfrewshire

  147

  St. Denis and Cranley School, Edinburgh

  18

  St. George's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  16

  St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews

  22

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Aberdeen

  13

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  54

  Strathallan School, Forgandenny, Perthshire

  34

  Wellington School, Ayr

  139

  Westbourne School for Girls, Glasgow

  170

  Total

  2,672

  1 Provisional figures which may be subject to adjustment following receipt of final audited claims still to be submitted by the schools concerned.

  Degree Courses
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students are taking four-year degree courses at Scottish universities at present.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1987–88 there were 30,600 undergraduate students on four-year full-time and sandwich courses at Scottish universities. This figure includes overseas and other students not in receipt of assistance under British student support arrangements. For those on sandwich courses the four-year period is inclusive of time spent working in industry as part of the course.

  School Leavers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of young people leaving school at Christmas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The projected number of school leavers at Christmas 1988 is not available. The number of school leavers in the winter of session 1987–88 was 15,600.

  YTS (Lothian)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people, because of unsuitability or other reasons, have not so far been placed on YTS in Leith and other constituencies within Lothian region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  Such information is not collected by the Government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Official Secrets
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those international organisations from which the United 488
  Kingdom Government obtain information in confidence, as referred to in clause 3 of the Official Secrets Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  It would not be practicable to compile a list as requested. Circumstances might arise in which Her Majesty's Government receive information of the kind specified in the Bill from a number of international organisations.

  GCHQ Cheltenham
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions exist on former Government Communications Headquarters officers wishing to emigrate to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Former GCHQ employees are not permitted to visit the Soviet Union for three years after the end of their service. Thereafter, they are free to visit or reside in the USSR.

  Nuclear Reprocessing Plant
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any officials from his Department were present at the Lascar review committee meeting on nuclear safeguards applications at large scale reprocessing plants, held in Tokyo on 17-21 October.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resource commitment has been made by his Department towards the Lascar group on technical information exchanges on safeguards applications at large scale reprocessing plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. P. J. Haseldine
  Mr. Campbell Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take in the case of Mr. P. J. Haseldine of the information department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office following publication of a letter from him in The Guardian of 7 December.

  Mr. Eggar
  The matter is being considered in accordance with procedures laid down in diplomatic service regulations. The action to be taken will depend on the outcome of this consideration.

  NATO-Warsaw Pact Communications
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present direct channels of communications between member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The member countries of the two organisations maintain embassies in each other's capitals. In addition, their representatives meet in various forums discussing security issues, such as the conference on disarmament in Geneva and the conventional stability talks mandate negotiations in Vienna.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his estimates of the effect of the introduction of a scheme for student loans upon the numbers of adult students entering full-time education who are(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) of working class background.

  Mr. Jackson
  Top-up loans mean extra resources for students. That will make higher education more attractive to students of all ages and from all backgrounds.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his reply on 2 December to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report columns 406-7, he will provide a full list of those organisations with whom he is discussing his proposals for student loans; and whether all members of the banking and financial services sector are to be consulted.

  Mr. Baker
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 2 December.

  Economic and Social Sciences
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy towards the European Commission stimulation plan for economic and social sciences (corn (88) 98 final/spes) 1989 to 1992; and how it will assist the development of new co-operation in Europe on economic and social scientific initiatives in universities and research institutes.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government welcomes this proposal to promote European co-operation in economic science. It complements existing Government policies directed at enhancing appropriate international collaboration in research and development. It will assist co-operation by supporting training, communication, and mobility among European economists.

  School Performances (Fees)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the effect of the new statutory requirements on charging of fees on visiting drama groups, poetry readings or other artistic professionals coming into schools to perform for children; and what representations he has received from head teachers in that regard.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the level of visits by groups of performers to schools need change markedly as a result of the provisions of the Education Reform Act. The Act clarifies earlier legislation in establishing that schools may not charge for any provision offered during school hours, with the exception of individual music tuition. Charges may be made for activities provided outside school hours, unless these are required for a prescribed examination syllabus or for the national curriculum.

  Restrictions on charging do not prevent local authorities or schools from seeking voluntary contributions in support of particular activities, and we are
  490
  confident that parents will continue to support activities which they regard and have regarded in the past as educationally worth while. There has been a small number of representations from head teachers which mention this issue. A draft circular of advice to local authorities and schools was issued for consultation in September. The Department is now analysing the responses to consultation and plans to issue final guidance early in January 1989.

  Disabled Students Allowance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the payment of the disabled students allowance by local education authorities to registered disabled students in receipt of a mandatory award who incur additional expenditure arising from their attendance on the course and because of their disability, is discretionary or mandatory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The allowance is payable as part of a mandatory award but decisions on whether and at what level it should be paid in individual cases are for local education authorities. Payments of up to £730 may be made where the authority is satisfied that a disabled student is obliged, by reason of his disability, to incur additional expenditure in respect of his attendance on his course.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on providing resources to local education authorities to support the recruitment, retention and motivation of school teachers, especially in inner London, after April 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The school teachers' pay and conditions document 1988 gives LEAs flexibility to take account of the problems of recruiting and retaining teachers in urban areas. The teaching as a career unit, financed by the Department, is already in discussion with LEAs about best practice on recruitment policy. These discussions encompass the inner London boroughs, which will need to liaise with ILEA over the arrangements for teacher recruitment up to April 1990.

  Foreign Language Teachers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made any projections about the potential supply of foreign language teachers once the proposed directive on national reorganisation of higher education diplomas comes into force in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The supply projections included in my Department's memorandum to the Education, Science and Arts Committee on teacher supply assume a very limited increase in the number of teachers recruited from overseas. That assumption is highly tentative. We shall be considering further the scope for increased recruitment from this source.

  Inner London Staff Commission
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the
  491
  full membership of the Inner London staff commission which he is required to establish under section 170 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend appointed Mr. J. J. Warren, former chief executive of the London borough of Newham, to be chairman of the commission in October. I am pleased to say that Mr. Arthur Capelin, previously secretary of the Greater London staff association, and Mr. Trevan Hingston, former head of personnel relations for the Royal Dutch Shell Group, have agreed to serve as the other two members of the Commission. The secretary to the Commissioners is Mr. M. J. Rabarts. The chairman has already held preliminary meetings with a number of those concerned with the staffing implications of the abolition of ILEA, and the full commission is expected to hold its first meeting before Christmas.

WALES

  National Museum of Wales
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether a work of art, accepted by the Government in lieu of capital transfer tax, it to be allocated to the National Museum of Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has accepted the recommendation of the Museums and Galleries Commission and agreed that two paintings by William Hogarth entitled "The House of Cards" and "A Children's Party", should be allocated to the National Museum of Wales. Seventeen institutions applied to house these important paintings, and both I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts welcome their allocation to a gallery outside London. The level of interest shown by so many institutions shows that the acceptance in lieu scheme is well thought of in the museum world and ensures the preservation of important works of art throughout this country.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Commission (Vice-President)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what qualities she looks for in making an appointment to the vice-presidency of the European Economic Community Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 1 December 1988, at column 345.

  Enterprise and Employment
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to foster enterprise and create employment in the north of England.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will continue to operate policies which will reinforce the successes already achieved in the northern region, not least the fall in unemployment of nearly 22 per cent. in the period since December 1986.

  Mr. P. J. Haseldine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to receive the report from Sir Robin Butler on the case of Mr. P. J. Hasleldine and his letter to The Guardian; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not expect to receive such a report. This case is being considered in accordance with procedures laid down in diplomatic service regulations. These regulations are made under the powers vested in the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary by the Diplomatic Service Order in Council 1964 which established the diplomatic service as a separate service under the Crown.

  Civil Servants (Meetings)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what instructions have been given to members of the Civil Service about attending meetings, in their personal capacity as trade unionists, with hon. Members of Parliament from Opposition parties.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report her reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West, dated 8 December, on the Griffiths report and the letter dated 23 November to which it refers.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my usual practice to publish exchanges of this kind.

  Engagements
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I went to St. George's hospital in Tooting to visit some of those who had been injured in yesterday's terrible train crash, and to thank the hospital staff.

  In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Warren Springs Laboratory
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many items of correspondence he has received from hon. Members about the work of the Warren Springs laboratory since 1 July.

  Mr. Forth
  No such correspondence has been received.

  Wool and Knitted Garments (Turkey)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to pursue in the European Community Turkey's breach of Ankara agreement in levying duties of up to 78 per cent. on wool cloth and 122 per cent. on knitted garments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  The Government are very concerned about the high level of taxation on Community goods of all kinds entering Turkey.

  Following representations from the United Kingdom and other member states, the Commission has established a working group of experts with Turkey to seek to resolve outstanding trade issues between the Community and Turkey. My Department supplied a statement of the United Kingdom's concerns to the Commission in advance of the first meeting of the working group and we shall continue to give full support to the Commission's efforts to improve conditions for competition within the framework of the EC-Turkey association agreement.

  Private Investment
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of private investment in industry in the United Kingdom for the last year figures are available; and what is the European Community average since 1981.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  Figures of private investment in industry in the United Kingdom for 1987 are given in the table "Gross domestic fixed capital formation 1987: Analysis by industry and sector" on page 133 of the 1988 edition of "United Kingdom National Accounts", a copy of which is held in the Library. Comparable figures for the European Community are not available. Some relevant information is contained in the publication "National Accounts ESA-Detailed tables by sector 1970–1984".

  Further Education Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the sums paid and institutions and courses assisted in each standard region under his support for further education programme.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has for several years supported further education under a number of schemes. Details have not been maintained in the manner which would enable provision of the information requested, and to supply it would therefore involve disproportionate cost.

  Hearing Aids (High Pressure Sales)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has concerning the practice 494
  of some dispensers in the private sector in exploiting the unsolicited home visit to conduct high pressure sales on vulnerable consumers; what measures are being taken to control misleading hearing aid advertising which encourages unrealistically high expectations by the users; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I understand that since January 1987 the Hearing Aid Council has received some 70 complaints following unsolicited home visits by hearing aid dispensers, although not usually about the fact that the visit was unsolicited. My Department has received two such complaints during the same period.

  The Hearing Aid Council, with which all private dispensers must be registered, has a binding code of practice, which inter alia lays down the circumstances in which a home visit may be made. The Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987 provide additional protection.

  The advertising of hearing aids is governed by specific provisions in the Advertising Standards Authority's code of practice. The Director General of Fair Trading also has powers to take action under the Misleading Advertising Regulations 1988 against persistent abusers of the authority's code.

  Steel
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much of the non-allotted funds for steel areas under EEC and ESCS schemes remains unspent; what plans there are for finalising further projects under these schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  The "non-quota" measure of steel closure areas is for grants from the EEC European regional development fund. In England, approximately £2·5 million of the £22·5 million allocation is uncommitted. It is expected that offers of assistance will take up the bulk of this by the closing date of 31 March 1989.

  North Peckham Task Force
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will specify(a) the businesses started or supported by the north Peckham task force and (b) the number of new jobs created in each.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Task forces do not directly support businesses. However, the information which follows relates to businesses which have been grant aided, or provided with a loan facility, through the task force development fund. The development fund was set up jointly by the north Peckham task force and Lloyds bank.

  Business name

  Jobs created

  ARA Security Strap

  1

  Pecan Limited

  1

  Rapid Cleaning Supplies

  2

  Crack'n The Flags

  3

  E1 Vergel

  4

  Good As New

  2

  Beauty At Its Best

  1

  Paper Box

  3

  J & K Hunt Transport Services

  4

  The Pie & Mash Shop

  3

  495

  Business name

  Jobs created

  Rip It Up

  2

  Ruby Robinson

  1

  Screening Now

  3

  Eleanor Williams

  1

  Doggone

  1

  Danielle

  1

  David Games Limited

  1

  Chris Johnson

  1

  Mauritius News

  2

  Fabric Ideas

  1

  The Patchwork Kids

  1

  Super Clean Mobile Valeting

  1

  Mr. Lam Chinese Restaurant

  4

  Parker Street

  1

  R & M Contractors

  2

  FFMI Anthony Oye

  1

  Thuy Vi's Cleaners

  2

  Naturally First Limited

  2

  Viet Hing Restaurant

  6

  Radford's Interior Metalwork

  1

  We Paint To Please

  2

  Corks Cleaning Services

  2

  Govella

  3

  L B's Secretarial Services

  1

  Tojac

  1

  Felicia

  1

  Bugas

  2

  Mode 7

  3

  Pennie Ray

  1

  Foto-Mobile

  1

  Greg & Lyn Staunton

  2

  41 Total

  79

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any information as to who is the major supplier of waste paper to the United Kingdom newsprint industry at present, and as to the total tonnage output of that company.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Information on suppliers of waste paper to newsprint producers in the United Kingdom is limited, but I have no reason to believe that there is any one major supplier.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any information

  Year

  United Kingdom newsprint production Tonnes

  Consumption of waste paper used in United Kingdom newsprint production

  Percentage volume of United Kingdom newsprint production containing de-inked paper pulp

  Tonnes

  Tonnes

  Per cent.>

  1983

  80,000

  80,000

  100

  1984

  236,000

  190,000

  81

  1985

  352,000

  221,000

  63

  1986

  476,000

  222,000

  48

  1987

  497,000

  285,000

  57

  Source: WSL and industry December 1988.

  Mergers and Takeovers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, pursuant to his reply in the Official Report of 28 November, column 102, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan he will (a) list the academic evidence monitored by his Department, (b) indicate the dates of the reports he received from his Department with information
  496
  suggesting the rate of growth in future demand for waste paper by the United Kingdom paper and board and printing industries.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: No. My right hon. Friend does not have any such information.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to help establish efficient systems for the collection and recycling of waste paper in order to meet the future demands of the United Kingdom paper and board industry.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: My Department is in regular contact with the key players in the waste paper collecting and waste paper using industries. It is my aim to help promote the more efficient operation of the markets and utilise economically the maximum amount of waste paper.

  I am always prepared to consider carefully ways of encouraging such efficiency improvements in the light of changing demands, in which connection I recently convened a meeting with the key players in the market to consider as a matter of urgency ways in which the system for collecting and recycling the appropriate grades of waste paper might be improved in the light of forecast demand. I hope to make an announcement in the new year about further steps to be taken.

  I am also ready to consider any proposals which may come forward for further commitment conferences aimed at increasing the use of waste paper.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has concerning the percentage volume of United Kingdom newsprint which has contained de-inked paper pulp in each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  (2) what information he has concerning the total tonnage consumption of waste paper by the United Kingdom newsprint industry in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: I do not have information on the extent to which de-inked paper pulp has been used in the manufacture of imported newsprint. But the position as regards United Kingdom-produced newsprint is given in the following table. For these purposes, consumption of waste paper is equated with consumption of de-inked paper pulp.

  about the effects of mergers and takeovers on British industrial companies; and (c) list the higher education departments and centres and academics consulted by his Department on these matters.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The range of available academic evidence monitored by my Department is indicated in annex E of the Blue Paper on

  497
  mergers policy which was published on 3 March this year. In addition, the economists of my Department provide me with a wide range of economic advice on United Kingdom industrial performance.

  Works of Art (Exports)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many export licences for works of art have been granted for each year since 1983; to which countries the items have been exported; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The number of export licences granted for works of art of United Kingdom origin, or in transit through the United Kingdom, for the period since 1983, is as follows. Statistics are not available by country of destination.

  Export licences for works of art, 1983–88

  Year

  United Kingdom origin

  In transit

  Total export

  1983

  3,100

  2,200

  5,300

  1984

  3,800

  2,800

  6,600

  1985

  2,960

  2,370

  5,330

  1986

  3,010

  2,870

  5,880

  1987

  3,060

  3,150

  6,210

  11988

  3,010

  3,500

  6,150

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry

  1 Up to November 1988

  Dixons Group
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grants or financial assistance from his Department have been paid since 1979 to Dixons Group plc.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: There is no record of any grant or other financial assistance by my Department to Dixons Group plc, but I understand that, under the revised regional development grant scheme, £141,000 was made available to Dixons Colour Laboratories Ltd in 1988 by the Industry Department for Scotland.

  Post Office Counters Ltd
  Mr. James Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has considered the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of Post Office Counters Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: My right hon. Friend is considering the Post Office's response to the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Post Office Counters services, and expects to make a statement shortly.

ODA

  Cape Verde Islands
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is given to the Cape Verde Islands.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Bilateral aid to Cape Verde in 1987 amounted to £38,000. This was spent on training awards 498
  in Britain mainly for English language training, a books presentation programme and support for an English language seminar in Mindelo.

  Multilateral aid agencies to which we contribute also help Cape Verde. We estimate that aid attributable to the United Kingdom through these agencies was about £2 million in 1986, of which about £1·4 million went through the European Community.

  War Service (Pensions)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if pensioners who served in the colonial service are now able to count in full their war service towards their pension years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The rules governing eligibility for war service credit for colonial pensioners are still being worked out, but they will relate as closely as possible to those which apply to other public servants. One of the basic provisions of all other public service schemes is that war service immediately prior to appointment attracts benefits at half-rate.

DEFENCE

  ALARM Development
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the then Ministry of Defence research establishment at Westcott was unable to fulfil its subcontract obligations to British Aerospace in respect of the ALARM missile rocket motor development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the evidence provided by British Aerospace to the Defence Committee, published as part of the Committee's fifth report for the 1987–88 Session. The subcontract on Royal Ordnance Westcott (formerly the propellants, explosives, and rocket motor establishment) was terminated by BAe, the ALARM prime contractor, because the motor could not predictably be developed in an acceptable time-scale or at an acceptable cost to meet the BAe requirement.

  Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that all new contracts include penalty clauses to enable his Department to seek redress for a contractor's failure to perform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All relevant factors are considered case by case in seeking to secure the best value for money in negotiating contract terms. The Ministry's policy is to negotiate taut terms and conditions which define the requirement in terms of specification and delivery, and which enable redress to be sought where appropriate.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central on 29 November,Official Report, column 568, he will indicate whether any interference by computer hacking has taken place on defence computer systems concerning low-classified information; and if he will make a statement.
  499
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no evidence that computer hackers have gained access to any classified information held on Ministry of Defence computers. Precautions are also taken to deny unauthorised access to information held on unclassified systems, and there is no evidence of problems arising from any attempts to interfere with these systems.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much compensation has been paid by his Department to farmers for damage to livestock from the effects of low-flying aircraft each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, compensation for all animal losses as a result of military low flying activities totalled about £95,000 in 1987, and payments to date this year have amounted to approximately £220,000.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the cost to his Department of low-flying training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying is an integral and essential part of military flying training. In common with other aspects of training, costs are not identified separately and their production would require disproportionate effort.

  NATO Modernisation
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the modernisations carried out by the Warsaw pact countries to which proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation modernisations are a response.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For NATO, periodic modernisation of nuclear weapon systems is an essential part of the process of maintaining effective deterrence with the minimum level of forces. There is no direct relationship between modernisation programmes currently under consideration within the Alliance and specific modernisation programmes currently under way inside the Warsaw pact.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of the increase in tax relief in 1988 for people of working age which will go to two-earner married couples; and what is the corresponding figure in the case of his proposals for separate taxation of men and women on the present tax basis.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that the 1988 Budget increased income tax allowances for taxpayers of working age by £5½ billion, of which 49 per cent. was for married couples where the wife was earning. The corresponding figures if the system of independent taxation of husband and wife were in place would be £5½billion and 47 per cent. The estimates are based on the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes projected to 1988–89, and are provisional. They take no account of possible behavioural changes on the introduction of independent taxation.
  500
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has come to a decision on the option in paragraph 4.16 of Cmnd. 9756 of restricting the additional personal income tax allowance to those in receipt of one-parent and other appropriate benefits;and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing what the effect of such a change would be in terms of the number of allowances claimed and the savings to the revenue;

  (2) if he has come to a decision on the option in paragraph 4.15 of Cmnd. 9756 of converting the additional personal income tax allowance into increased social security provision; and if he will provide an estimate of (a) the amount of revenue which could be transferred to the social security budget in this way and (b) what increase in benefits would be required to ensure that nobody is worse off as a result of the change;

  (3) what is his estimate of the amount of the mortgage taken out by the median mortgagee claiming mortgage interest relief, the increase since May in the rate of interest, the amount of interest payable in a full year, and the total amount of relief at the standard rate payable in a full year at the standard rate of income tax;

  (4) what was the economic case for reducing income tax on investment income in the case of those with an income in excess of the ceiling below which there is an entitlement to income support; and if he will publish in the Official Report an estimate of the saving to the revenue from increasing the tax on investment income by eight percentage points;

  (5) what is the percentage of the increase in tax relief in 1988 for people of working age which will go to two-earner married couples; and what is the corresponding figure in the case of his proposals for separate taxation of men and women on the present tax basis.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  These questions are duplicates of questions tabled for answer on Monday 28 November. I have nothing to add to the answers I gave in reply to those questions.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of lowering the standard rate of tax to 20p.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 5 December, at column 53.

  Bank Loans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much payment was received by United Kingdom registered banks arising from loans of under one-year maturity to public and private borrowers in(a) Latin America and the Caribbean, (b) Africa and (c) south-east Asia for each year from 1982 to 1987;

  (2) how much payment was due to United Kingdom registered banks arising from loans of under one year maturity to public and private borrowers in (a) Latin America and the Caribbean, (b) Africa and (c) south-east Asia for each year from 1982 to 1987 and allowing for the effects of any rescheduling agreements;

  (3) how much was lent by United Kingdom registered banks in loans of under one-year maturity to private and public borrowers in (a) Latin America and the Caribbean, (b) Africa and (c) south-east Asia for each year from 1982 to 1987, respectively;
  501
  (4) how much payment was received by United Kingdom registered banks in amortisation, interest, margins and fees arising from loans of over one-year maturity to public and private borrowers in (a) Latin America and the Caribbean and (b) Africa for each year from 1982 to 1987, respectively;

  (5) how much was lent by United Kingdom registered banks in loans of over one-year maturity to private and public borrowers in (a) Latin America and the Caribbean, (b) Africa and (c) south-east Asia for each year from 1982 to 1987, respectively;

  (6) how much payment was due in amortisation, interest, margins and fees to United Kingdom registered banks arising from loans of over one-year maturity to public and private borrowers in (a) Latin America and the Caribbean, (b) Africa and (c) south-east Asia for each year 1982 to 1987, and allowing for the effects of any re-scheduling agreements.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. I would, however, refer the hon. Gentleman to the analysis which can be found in table 15 of the November 1988 edition of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to paragraph 3.18 of Cmnd. 9756 how his proposals for separate taxation for husbands and wives will affect families where the wife wishes to remain at home to care for young children; and if he will publish in the Official Report figures for his revised proposals corresponding to those in chart 3.1 of Cmnd. 9756.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Under independent taxation, husband and wife will each be entitled to a personal allowance which can be set against any kind of income. The husband will also get the married couple's allowance. The personal allowance and married couple's allowance added together are equal to the present married man's allowance.

  On the change to independent taxation, the total amount of income tax allowances used by married couples of working age will rise by about £2½ billion at 1988–89 levels of income and allowances. This figure takes no account of possible behavioural changes. The total amount of allowances used by single people will, of course, remain unchanged.

  Estimates of the percentage of income tax allowances used by taxpayers of working age, by family type, are as follows:

  Present system per cent.

  Independent taxation per cent.

  Single

  30

  29

  Married, wife not earning

  22

  23

  Married, wife earning

  48

  48

  Funeral Services (VAT)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue would be forgone if value added tax on services relating to funerals was withdrawn.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information is not available on which to base an estimate.

  Imports
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the marginal propensity to import by individuals according to convenient bands of personal income.

  Mr. Major
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for Scotland the number of private concessions resulting from competitive tendering in the National Health Service in which value added tax was waived, giving the total amount.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that this information is not available.

  HMSO
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many items of correspondence he has received from hon. Members about the work of Her Majesty's Stationery Office since 1 July.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend and I have received four items of correspondence from hon. Members about the work of Her Majesty's Stationery Office since 1 July.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about progress concerning the implementation of the Government's data network.

  Mr. Brooke
  Installation and implementation of the network is proceeding to plan and it is expected to complete acceptance testing of the initial phase network by the end of January.

  Crown Estate Office
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the setting and publishing of performance targets for the Crown Estate Office.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Crown Estate, in consultation and agreement with the Treasury, has undertaken to prepare the following annual cycle of targets and assessments:

  (a) An autumn statement of five-year targets of total returns from income and capital growth. prepared independently by a leading firm of chartered surveyors—Hillier Parker May and Rowden. It will be prepared from economic models developed to forecast rental and yield movements as a device to calculate capital value changes.

  (b) A late spring broad programme, prepared by the Crown Estate, of the budget of revenue and expenditure for the following year, with estimates of income and expenditure for the two succeeding years. This programme will, as at present, be discussed and agreed with the Treasury.

  (c) A late-summer monitoring by the Crown Estate and Hillier Parker of the outturn for the previous year in relation to the broad programme and the

  503
  longer-term targets. It would also take into account the financial results achieved by other major property concerns.

  (d) The independently prepared target of total returns, and the budget of net revenue, for the following year will be published in the annual reports of the Crown Estate. The other assessments of future developments, being commercially sensitive, will not be published, but will be reviewed and discussed with the Treasury in this annual cycle of monitoring performance.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Reprocessing Plant
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if details were exchanged at the Lascar meeting in Tokyo on 17 to 21 October, in regard to the facility attachments and particular safeguards provisions arranged for the MBA III reprocessing section of the Windscale reprocessing works at British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Sellafield, under article 35 of Euratom regulation No. 3227/76 of 19 October 1976.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These matters were not discussed at the Lascar meeting. The Lascar programme is concerned with the application of safeguards to future large scale reprocessing plants.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what commitment has been made by his Department to the Lascar review group on the implementation of safeguards to large-scale reprocessing plants.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The safeguards office of the Department will be represented at all meetings of the Lascar group.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the recent revisions of the costs of decommissioning British Nuclear Fuel's magnox reprocessing plant, indicating how and what compulsion the operators have to provide for these costs in their accounting policies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Nuclear Fuels plc's annual report for 1987–88, published on 8 November, reported on a review which had been undertaken of the company's policy towards and provisions made for decommissioning of BNFL plant, including the Magnox reprocessing plant. The decommissioning policies adopted by BNFL and the provisions made to meet liabilities formed part of the company's annual accounts which were audited in accordance with approved auditing standards and accepted by the company's auditors.

  Offshore Supplies
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what statistics his Department collects about United Kingdom owned capability in major areas of offshore supplies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  None.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what factors prevent him from quantifying in the Brown Book United Kingdom-owned capability in major areas of offshore supplies.
  504
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The factors are:

  (1) that our analysis of orders for the UKCS recognises all companies established in the United Kingdom and making a substantial contribution to the United Kingdom as British without any distinction on the grounds of ownership. This definition is in accordance with Government policy on inward investment and we are firmly opposed to changing it;

  (2) the data supplied by the oil industry since 1974 is on the above basis and a considerably increased workload would be involved in checking the ownership of companies, monitoring changes, and calculating orders on ownership basis. That extra work for the oil industry and for the Department is not justified.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the discussions on nuclear waste to which he referred in his answer of 27 July,Official Report, column 287, will be completed; and if he will make a statement on progress to date.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The IAEA convened an advisory group meeting on safeguards related to final disposal of nuclear material in waste and spent fuel in September 1988. Further discussions are planned in 1989.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if any departmental representation was made, and papers presented at(a) the 33-nation international conference on greenhouse effect and global warming, held in Geneva in November and (b) the world congress on climate and development and the greenhouse problem held in Hamburg from 7 to 10 November.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No representatives from my Department attended either meeting. Representatives from the Department of the Environment and the Meteorological Office actively participated in the Geneva meeting of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Dr. Houghton, director general of the Meteorological Office, is to chair one of the three working groups that were set up at the meeting. A representative from the Department of the Environment attended the Hamburg conference.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table for each of the United Kingdom reactor types(a) magnox, (b) advance gas-cooled reactor, (c) SGHWR, (d) EBR, (e) Harwell research reactors and (f) future pressurised water reactors, the annual quantities of nuclear waste arising in cubic metres from (i) reactor operation, (ii) reactor decommissioning and (iii) reprocessing activities in terms of spent fuel, high-level wastes, intermediate-level wastes and low-level wastes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for the operators of the reactor types in question. I have asked the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportions of the cost of decommissioning
  505
  British Nuclear Fuels' magnox fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield will be borne in part by each of the civil magnox nuclear power station operators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The costs of decommissioning the Magnox reprocessing plant at Sellafield will be shared between British Nuclear Fuels plc and other customers on the basis of the relevant share of usage of the facilities concerned.

  Electricity Supply (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the London electricity board to discuss the supply of electricity to the metropolis.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet with the chairmen of the area electricity boards regularly and discuss a wide range of issues.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Infant Life Preservation Act.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to seek to amend the Infant Life Preservation Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the longest sentence served by a doctor for performing an abortion contrary to sections 57 and 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the records held centrally to distinguish the occupation of offenders given custodial sentences. However, the records held centrally show only one offender, aged 21, who was convicted during the last 10 years under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

  Shops Act
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council for amendments to the Shops Act.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. We are studying these closely.

  Discharged Prisoners (Assistance)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to improve assistance to discharged prisoners.

  Mr. John Patten
  We provide assistance to discharged prisoners in many ways through the prison service, probation services and voluntary organisations. Efforts are constantly being made to improve this service.

  Charter 88
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to implement the proposals of Charter 88 for constitutional reforms.
  506
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to implement the recommendations of Charter 88 with regard to reform of the judicial system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to implement the recommendations of Charter 88 for reform of the electoral system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Westminster, North will receive a definitive response in respect of the case of Mrs. R. Raedler of Lausanne for the registration of her two sons, Marc and David, as British citizens, about which he first wrote to the Department in January.

  Mr. Renton
  Applications for the registration of Mrs. Raedler's sons as British citizens were made at the British consulate general in Geneva on 9 February and received in the Home Office on 29 February.

  Following the large number of applications for citizenship which were received last year, the average waiting time for processing registration applications is 13 months. We shall deal with these applications as soon as possible and inform Mrs. Raedler of the decision.

  My hon. Friend will also be advised of the decision.

  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Westminster, North will receive a definite response in respect of case M 524399/2(s), Mr. and Mrs. M. S. Badrawi, about which the hon. Member first wrote to him in October 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) replied to my hon. Friend's letters of 30 October 1986 and 19 November 1986 on 13 January 1987, setting out the position in Mr. Badrawi's case. A further letter dated 13 July 1987 from my hon. Friend to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was copied to the Home Office and a reply sent by my private office on 18 September.

  Mr. Badrawi's application was granted on 3 November 1988.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the proposed pilot projects to use electronic monitoring for people on bail will begin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Next summer.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the role of the police national computer in contingency plans for the internment of possible subversives in the event of war.
  507
  Mr. Hurd
  There are no plans relevant to this question.

  Metropolitan Police (Road Traffic)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for the latest year available, on the number of man-hours spent by the Metropolitan police on road traffic matters and the cost thereof, and the percentage both these figures represent, of the annual total, by time and by cost.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his question on 12 December.

  Firearms Amnesty
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show so far as the information is available to him the number of rounds of each calibre of ammunition surrendered to the police during the recent firearms amnesty and indicate whether it was (a) rifle, (b) shotgun, (c) pistol or revolver, (d) other firearms, or (e) air or gas powered weapons ammunition.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information as to the calibre of rounds of ammunition surrendered during the recent firearms amnesty in England and Wales is not available. Details of the type of ammunition surrendered is as follows:

  Rounds

  Prohibited ammunition

  390

  Bulletted ammunition

  1,165,934

  Shot gun ammunition

  167,212

  Other ammunition

  119,171

  Total

  1,511,000

  The total includes estimates for two police forces.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report to detail so far as the information is available to him the number of firearms surrendered to the police in each of the following categories during the recent amnesty (a) self-loading rifles, (b) bolt action rifles, (c) pump action rifles, (d) under lever action rifles, (e) single shot rifles, (f) double rifles, (g) other types of rifle, (h) revolvers, (i) self-loading pistols, (j) single shot pistols, (k) other types of hand guns, (l) shotguns, (m) combination shotgun/rifles, (n) antique firearms by type and (o) air and gas-powered weapons, and indicate for each of the above how many were in useable condition, and for how many of the above firearms in each group ammunition is currently available; and what his estimate is of the market value of each class of firearms surrendered.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A breakdown by type of firearms surrendered in England and Wales during the recent amnesty is as follows:

  Firearms

  Number

  Number

  Fully automatic weapons

  178

  Self-loading rifles

  315

  Manual operation rifles

  4,856

  All rifles

  5,171

  Pistols and revolvers

  18,005

  508

  Firearms

  Number

  Number

  Total firearms

  23,354

  Shotguns

  Traditional long-barrelled shotguns

  10,601

  Other long-barrelled shotguns

  171

  All long-barrelled shotguns

  10,772

  Traditional short-barrelled shotguns

  404

  Other Short-barrelled shotguns

  78

  All short-barrelled shotguns

  482

  Total shotguns

  11,254

  Other firearms

  Prohibited firearms

  69

  Air rifles and air pistols

  6,126

  Other firearms (including imitations)

  1,922

  Total other firearms

  8,117

  Total firearms and shotguns

  42,725

  The other information requested is not available.

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has that more stringent penalties for illegal parking have led to reduction in the number of such offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of measures have been introduced in recent years to deter illegal parking, including new fixed penalty procedures and, in London, wheelclamping and contracted out vehicle removals. The transport and road research laboratory has monitored the impact of wheelclamping since it was introduced on an experimental basis in 1983. The latest surveys show that clamping has reduced the incidence of illegal parking by up to 40 per cent. in some areas.

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has that the humiliation of persons accused of offences under the Road Traffic Acts will act as a deterrent to other potential offenders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The prospect of arrest, charge, prosecution and conviction should act as a deterrent to all potential offenders. This applies to offences under the Road Traffic Acts as much as to any other serious criminal offences.

  IBA Levy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Independent Broadcasting Authority levy for the period 1990 to 1992.

  Mr. Hurd
  In conjunction with the Treasury, my Department has reviewed the arrangements in the Broadcasting Act 1981, as amended by the Finance Act 1986, for additional payments by independent television contractors (the levy). The review was undertaken to consider transitional arrangements for the 1990–92 contract extension period prior to the restructuring of
  509
  independent television on the lines proposed in the Government's recently published White Paper on broadcasting. It also took into account the recommendations of the 43rd report of the Committee of Public Accounts in 1987–88.

  Following consultation with the IBA, we have decided that the levy for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1992 will be raised both from the net advertising revenue and from the profits of the independent television contracts. It is intended that the overall yield of the levy during this period should be of broadly the same amount as would have arisen under the arrangements which existed prior to 1986. The structure of the new levy will be such that about three quarters of the total yield is expected to arise from net advertising revenue and the remainder from profits.

  The purpose behind these changes is to encourage cost-consciousness amongst the independent television contractors and to ensure an adequate return to the Government for use of a scarce national resource during the contract extension period.

  Precise details of the levy structure will be published in the spring of next year. The Government's detailed response to the 43rd report of the Public Accounts Committee will be published in a Treasury minute early next year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to carry out the undertakings given by Lord Ferrers,Official Report, columns 367 and 401, 4 March, with regard to regulation 2(b) of the Immigration (Restrictive Right of Appeal Against Deportation) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1988 (SI 1203); and if he will exclude persons returning to the United Kingdom who are entitled to remain in terms of sections 3(3)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 from the operation of section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 even if they do not obtain re-entry by virtue of section 3(3)(b) of the 1971 Act.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The Immigration (Restricted Right of Appeal Against Deportation) (Exemption) No. 2 Order 1988 exempts from the provisions of section 5(2) of the Immigration Act 1988 those persons who leave the United Kingdom and are re-landed during the currency of the earlier leave for the remainder of the terms and conditions of that leave. The order fully reflects the Government's intention to make an exception for such persons. To extend the scope of the exception so that it applied to those whose absence abroad was followed by re-admission other than by virtue of section 3(3)(b) would negate much of the purpose of section 5 of the 1988 Act.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmonella
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation seeking to ban the practice of feeding chickens with the recycled carcases of slaughtered and dead chickens.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no present plans to do so.
  510
  The Protein Processing Order 1981 requires all animal protein for incorporation in animal feedingstuffs to be manufactured free from salmonella contamination. My officials routinely inspect all plants producing such protein to ensure that this requirement is met. Carcases of chickens which have died from disease are not used in animal feedingstuffs but are disposed of separately.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a new Government guideline which would include a more stringent health check system for egg production.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have recently introduced a new voluntary code of practice on the control of salmonella for poultry health scheme members. A copy of this document is deposited in the House of Commons Library. A code of practice for commercial egg producers has now also been agreed and is being issued. Further measures will be taken.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the statutory code of practice which includes control of feedstuffs and the handling of eggs by producers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have recently introduced a new voluntary Code of Practice on the control of salmonella for poultry health scheme members. Also a code of practice for commercial egg producers has now been agreed and is being issued. A copy of this document is deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  My officials are discussing with industry representatives details for codes of practice on the production of feedstuffs. Meanwhile general guidelines on the production of feedingstuffs will be issued. I am also reviewing the existing legislation controlling these areas, to ensure that they are being implemented as effectively as possible.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the number of milk quotas allowed to be purchased by new milk producers in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom dairy farmers participated in the milk non-marketing scheme or dairy herd conversion scheme and subsequently made applications for quotas to his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It would be disproportionately expensive to estimate this figure.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the increase in the provision of extra milk quota in the European Community to reach 1 million tonnes.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Community milk quotas excluding the quota allocated to Spain on its accession in 1986 have in fact been reduced, from some 104 million tonnes in 1984–85 to 94 million tonnes in the current year. The Commission has proposed an increase in the quota reserve of 500,000 tonnes as part of its response to a judgment of the European Court and this is being considered at the Agriculture Council which commenced yesterday.
  511
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the criteria will be for the allocation of extra milk quota, available after the Mulder judgment between eligible United Kingdom farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The criteria for the allocation of extra milk quota are to be discussed at this week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. I shall make my usual statement after the Council.

  Cod Farming
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the outcome of experimental cod farming in(a) Norway and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the viability of such farming for the United Kingdom domestic cod market.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Scientists of my Department have kept a close watch on cod farming experiments in Norway and Scotland. For the foreseeable future the farming of salmon, and the potential for farming higher value marine fish species such as turbot and halibut, are likely to prove more commercially viable.

  Research
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of replacing the current system of seed testing for cereals at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany at Cambridge with an enforcement system, as proposed in his review.

  Mr. Ryder
  Financial estimates of the proposal are given in paragraphs 394, 403 and 476 of the report on the plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement as to the future of the testing and evaluation of new plant varieties and seeds being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany at Cambridge University.

  Mr. Ryder
  The National Institute of Agricultural Botany is an independent body but I understand that it has no plans at present to carry out such activities at Cambridge university.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect he anticipates that his review of agricultural research will have on the work of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany at Cambridge.

  Mr. Ryder
  It was announced earlier this year that grant-in-aid to the National Institute of Agricultural

  1987 catches in relation to type of fishing engine

  Type of engine

  Total number

  Location

  Total number of fish caught

  Total weight of fish caught

  1. Lough Neagh draft nets

  15

  All Lough Neagh

  Not available

  No figures available

  2. Lough Erne draft nets

  1

  All Lough Erne

  Not available

  356 kgs

  3. Draft net other than Lough Neagh or Lough Erne

  0

  —

  —

  —

  4. Single wall set nets or trammel net for capture of trout in Lough Neagh

  112

  All Lough Neagh

  Not available

  No figures available

  512
  Botany for its non-statutory work would be phased out over a period of three years between 1989 and 1992. The institute is seeking alternative funding from the industry which benefits from the institute's services and has already secured funding for next year's recommended list for cereals. Funding for the statutory work which the institute carries out on the Ministry's behalf will continue.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responses he has had from industry to his proposal in the agricultural research review that recommended list testing, carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany at Cambridge should be financed by the industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following the announcement to withdraw grant-in-aid to the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, comments have been received from or on behalf of a number of industry interests. In addition, consultations with industry organisations are taking place so that industry can consider what near-market research, including the institute's recommended lists, it would be prepared to fund. The institute has been successful in obtaining funds from the home grown cereals authority for the cereals recommended list next year and is continuing to urge the industry to support its other services.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fishing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many of each of the following fishing engines operate in the area covered by the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and their location or approximate location and the total number and total weight of fish taken by each method: draft net for the capture of salmon and freshwater fish on Lough Neagh, draft net for the capture of freshwater fish other than trout and rainbow trout on Lough Erne, draft net for use in freshwater other than Lough Neagh or Lough Erne, single wall set net or trammel net for the capture of trout in Lough Neagh, per 91 m (100 yd), single wall set net or trammel net for the taking of freshwater fish other than trout and rainbow trout, per 91 m (100 yd), bait net for the taking of freshwater fish other than trout and rainbow trout for use as bait per net, long line for the capture of pike on Lough Erne, fixed tidal draft net, fixed tidal draft net which operates in the estuary of a river upstream of the defined mouth, tidal draft net, drift net for the taking of salmon in the sea, bag net used in tidal waters, and salmon box or crib.

  Mr. Viggers
  The latest available information on these areas is as follows:
  513

  Type of engine

  Total number

  Location

  Total number of fish caught

  Total weight of fish caught

  5. Single wall set net or trammel net for capture of freshwater fish other than trout

  596

  Lough Neagh and Lough Erne

  Not available

  Lough Erne: 8,687 kgs Lough Neagh: No figures available

  6. Bait net

  20

  Lough Neagh and Lough Erne

  Not available

  No figures available

  7. Long line—Lough Erne (Pike)

  1

  All Lough Erne

  Not available

  70 kgs

  8. Fixed tidal draft net

  8

  6 East Antrim coast 2 North Antrim coast

  1,925

  5,227 kgs

  9. Fixed tidal draft net operating in the estuary of a river upstream of the defined mouth

  0

  —

  —

  —

  10. Tidal draft net

  7

  All County Down coast

  69

  215 kgs

  11. Drift net for taking of salmon in the sea

  8

  1 East Antrim coast 7 North coast of County Antrim and Londonderry

  248

  789 kgs

  12. Bag net used in tidal waters

  14

  North Antrim coast

  5,924

  17,593 kgs

  13. Salmon box or crib

  4

  All on the River Bann

  Figures unable to be disclosed due to being owned by one concern. Disclosure would contravene statutory confidentiality.

  Sheep Movements
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sheep, and what area of land in Northern Ireland, were originally placed under movement restrictions as a result of the Chernobyl disaster; what are the numbers of sheep and area of land still so affected; what were and are the classes of sheep; what was the level of radioactivity in the sheepmeat and in the vegetation when first detected, at the maximum levels, and at the latest available dates; and what were these dates.

  Mr. Viggers
  The restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep introduced in September 1987 as a result of monitoring of young lambs applied to some 21,612 acres containing an estimated 35,000 sheep. There was no breakdown of sheep by class available at that time. The restrictions continue to apply to this land area which is estimated to contain some 23,000 sheep—comprising 18,000 ewes/rams and 5,000 lambs.

  The maximum readings of radiocaesium from monitoring of sheep and lambs as required by the restrictions were found in young unfinished lamb and was 4,761 bq/kg recorded on 17 September 1987 while monitoring through the current year has identified a maximum reading of 2,199 bq/kg recorded on 19 August 1988. Of the 358 sheep presented in the week ended 13 November 1988 by farmers wishing to take them out of the restricted areas the maximum was 857 bq/kg of radiocaesium for ewes and 159 for lamb. A report on monitoring results is published by the Department of Agriculture on a regular basis.

  Routine monitoring of vegetation which gave a maximum result of 830 bq/kg was stopped during 1986 as such data could not be taken as a reliable guide to levels in growing livestock.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of extradition requests made to the Republic of Ireland in each year since 1967, indicating how many of those requests were for crimes of a terrorist nature and how many requests were for other types of crimes, and show for each year the number of those extradition requests which were granted for (a) crimes of a terrorist
  514
  nature and (b) other types of crimes and how many were refused for each class of crime; if he will indicate for each of those years, and each class of crime, how many extradition requests and warrants were found by the Irish Authorities and the Irish Courts to be unacceptable; if he will also publish in the Official Report the same information for extradition requests made to the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: Statistical material about extradition requests both to and from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been collected by the RUC since 1971. The information is not available precisely in the form requested. In particular, it has not proved possible to identify cases where, for example, the warrant was returned because the subject was subsequently found not to be in the Republic or to differentiate between those persons wanted for crimes of a terrorist nature and other crimes. The available information is however summarised in the following tables.

  Requests from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland

  Year

  Requests made

  Requests refused

  Persons ex-tradited as a result of the requests

  Requests still pending or not acted on for other reasons

  1971

  7

  —

  5

  2

  1972

  8

  —

  5

  3

  1973

  26

  —

  19

  7

  1974

  7

  —

  6

  1

  1975

  21

  —

  15

  6

  1976

  11

  —

  8

  3

  1977

  11

  —

  5

  6

  1978

  9

  —

  8

  1

  1979

  8

  —

  4

  4

  1980

  13

  2

  9

  2

  1981

  8

  —

  4

  4

  1982

  8

  —

  7

  1

  1983

  8

  —

  7

  1

  1984

  14

  —

  9

  5

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  6

  —

  5

  1

  1987

  3

  —

  1

  2

  515

  Requests from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland

  Year

  Requests made

  Requests refused

  Persons ex-tradited as a result of the requests

  Requests still pending or not acted on for other reasons

  1971

  32

  6

  7

  19

  1972

  20

  9

  —

  11

  1973

  16

  3

  3

  10

  1974

  30

  4

  9

  17

  1975

  20

  8

  1

  11

  1976

  34

  6

  8

  20

  1977

  25

  9

  10

  6

  1978

  40

  4

  15

  21

  1979

  14

  1

  8

  5

  1980

  23

  3

  12

  8

  1981

  23

  1

  6

  16

  1982

  36

  1

  18

  17

  1983

  27

  1

  11

  15

  1984

  12

  —

  12

  10

  1985

  33

  —

  5

  28

  1986

  5

  —

  11

  4

  1987

  21

  1

  1

  19

  1 Robert Russell and Gerard Harte were returned during August 1988.

  River Drainage Works
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report a list of the rural maintenance river drainage works for 1989 which will be carried out by the Department of Agriculture, indicating the river and appropriate location.

  Mr. Viggers
  The rural maintenance river drainage works programme for 1989–90 to be carried out by the Department of Agriculture will not be finalised until next spring. A copy will be sent to the hon. Gentleman at the time.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the arterial river drainage schemes, and major river maintenance works under consideration and those on which he expects work to start in 1989.

  Mr. Viggers
  The works programme in relation to new schemes and major maintenance works for the financial year 1989–90 has not yet been finalised. The programme will be sent to the hon. Gentleman when available.

  Drainage schemes at present under consideration to start in 1989 are as follows:

  Downpatrick

  Dunmurry

  Omagh—Johnston Park

  Omagh—Dromore Road

  Londonderry—Springtown

  Newry—Drumcashellone

  Newry—Derrybeg

  Strand Lough (Killough)

  Schemes are also under consideration for sections of the following rivers:

  Fairwater

  Cusher

  Mourne

  Colebrook

  Floods
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards repair of the damage to river banks, woods, and bridges 516
  caused by the floods of October 1987; what sums have been expended to the latest available date; what he expects the final cost of repairs to be.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Department of Agriculture has undertaken an extensive maintenance programme to repair river banks damaged by the flooding on 21 and 22 October 1987. Floodbanks breached on the Rivers Roe, Mourne, Strule and Faughan have now been repaired. In addition, measures have been taken to arrest erosion adjacent to floodbanks, particularly on the Moyola river. A programme to strengthen floodbanks on the River Roe is in progress. Repairs to river banks on the Rivers Blackwater and Tynan have also been carried out. Tree planting to replace trees carried away by the flood has been and will continue to be done.

  To date expenditure on this work amounts to some £370,000. It is estimated that a further £40,000 will be required to complete the river bank repairs.

  The majority of damaged bridges have been repaired by the Department of the Environment roads service at a cost of £403,000. Work is either already underway or planned to start soon on the remainder. The final cost of repairs is estimated to be £800,000.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessments he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under occupational leases of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non-domestic buildings.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on VAT will have no effect on our capital building programme, since compensating adjustments have been made to the relevant expenditure provisions. At this stage, before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option to tax rents, it is not possible to offer meaningful estimates of the effects of the judgment on rental costs.

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will receive a reply to his letter of 9 November to the Minister for Industry in Northern Ireland requesting the evidence relating to the view of the Tanaiste of the Irish Republic on the MacBride principles.

  Mr. Viggers
  I replied to this letter on 7 December.

  Redundancy and Insolvency Payments
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans to implement changes in relation to redundancy and insolvency payments in Northern Ireland following the announcement in the House on 31 October of proposed changes in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Yes. It is planned to make similar changes in Northern Ireland to those announced in the House on 31 October, but as redundancy and insolvency payments in
  517
  Northern Ireland are made under different legislation from that governing Great Britain payments, it will be necessary to introduce separate legislation to effect the changes in Northern Ireland.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Inspectors
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway inspectors are currently in post; and how many vacant posts for railway inspectors are currently unfilled.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of 16 railway inspectors are currently in post. There are vacancies for eight inspectors and as a result of our recent recruitment exercise, we hope to fill most of these early in the new year.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway inspectors were in post in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of railway inspectors in post in each of the last five years, as at 31 December, was:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  22

  1984

  23

  1985

  23

  1986

  19

  1987

  19

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of bus garages closed by London Regional Transport since 1984, including vehicle capacity, numbers of employees, employees made redundant, and present use of the site and buildings.

  Mr. Portillo
  These are matters for London Regional Transport and its subsidiary London Buses Limited. It is for them to decide what garages are needed to support their operational requirements.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of routes put out to competitive tender by London Regional Transport since 1984, showing the companies which won the contracts.

  Mr. Portillo
  Tendering of bus routes in London is a matter for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to introduce greater openness into London Regional Transport's system of awarding contracts, whether for routes or services.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport has a statutory duty to invite tenders for such of its activities as it determines to be appropriate, and to accept any tender which would result in those activities being carried out satisfactorily and at less cost. Subject to that, the award of contracts is a matter for LRT.

  Coastguard Services
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the financial considerations which 518
  he took into account in drawing up proposals for the closure of coastguard services at each of Hartland, Moray and Ramsey.

  Mr. Portillo
  Expenditure on coastguard services is planned to increase from £21·8 million in 1986–87 to £26·2 million in 1989–90. This increase reflects a steadily improving service with more effective radio and telecommunications equipment such as VHF direction-finding aerials, and better search and rescue helicopter coverage. The decision to merge the area responsibilities of the maritime rescue sub-centres at Hartland, Moray and Ramsey with those of adjacent stations will save about £600,000 a year, which is reflected in the planned figure for 1989–90. These savings allow other improvements in the service to be made, with no significant loss in operational effectiveness in the sea areas concerned.

  Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many items of correspondence he has received from hon. Members about the work of the driver and vehicle licensing centre since 1 July.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Ministers received 324 letters between 1 July and 7 December. Hon. Members also addressed 111 letters direct to the driver and vehicle licensing centre.

  To save time, hon. Members may wish to write direct to DVLC on executive rather than policy issues. That way, it is possible to reply faster.

  Road Licence Refunds
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of refunds of car road licences for each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 which were on first time registrations of new cars and the average refund value and the number of refunds and value to motor vehicle dealers in all cases.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  No distinction is made between refund applications relating to the first licence for a new vehicle and those for other vehicles. The DVLC records are not structured in a way which would make such an analysis practicable. Applications from motor dealers are not separately identifiable.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the annual cost of providing maintenance in respect of(a) lighting and (b)drainage for roads, for the latest year available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Expenditure 1986–87

  £ million

  Lighting

  Drainage

  Department of Transport

  13·3

  5·8

  Local Authority

  145·2

  66·2

  Total

  158·5

  72·0

  Notes:
  Expenditure in England only.
  Lighting includes energy costs.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the cost per mile of contructing a mile of(a) motorway and (b) double track railway line.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Construction costs of motorways vary substantially depending on factors such as location and the need for structures. As announced in the answer to

  Scheme

  Miles

  Cost £ million

  Average cost £ million per mile

  (i) Recently completed

  Completion date

  May 1986

  M4/25 Airport Spur

  0·9

  8·0

  8·9

  June 1986

  M42 Tamworth-Water Orton

  2·7

  27·0

  10·0

  June 1986

  M42 Bromsgrove

  4·3

  16·5

  3·8

  August 1986

  M42 Tamworth

  7·6

  22·2

  2·9

  August 1986

  M27 Swaythling Link

  0·7

  2·6

  3·7

  October 1986

  M25 Micklefield-South Mimms

  13·0

  94·3

  7·3

  December 1986

  A1(M) Roestock-Stanborough1

  3·1

  57·0

  18·4

  March 1987

  M5/M42 Junction Southern Turn

  1·4

  4·8

  3·4

  (ii) Under construction

  M40 Banbury Bypass

  27·6

  151·4

  5·5

  M40 Warwick Section

  11·1

  55·5

  5·0

  M63/M66 Portwood-Denton

  5·0

  40·6

  8·1

  1 Including Hatfield tunnel.

  The M25 is 117 miles long, and cost nearly £1 billion over the construction period from 1975 to 1986 (average £8·5 million per mile).

  It is difficult to give costs for railways as there are few examples in recent years of new stretches of line being built. The cost of providing a suitable alignment can be considerable, and variables such as the cost of stations, junctions nd tunnels mean that it is impossible to provide an average figure.

  BR has provided the following examples of construction costs (excluding land):

  Selby diversion—costs of infrastructure, track, earthworks, signalling, overhead wiring and station alternations: average of £4·5 million per mile (1983 prices: equivalent to £5·8 million per mile current prices).

  Stansted airport link—costs of infrastructure, track, earthworks, signalling and new junction but excluding the new station and tunnelling: average of £5·1 million per mile (1985 prices: £5·9 million per mile current prices); costs including tunnelling but excluding station: average of £7·7 million per mile (£8·8 million at current prices). The average figures include the single track section under the runway as well as the double track section: it is not possible to differentiate between these.

  The figures exclude the cost of locomotives and rolling stock.

  Traffic (Damage to Buildings)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate, for the latest year available, the cost of damage caused to roadside buildings by passing traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not held centrally from which to estimate the cost of damage to roadside buildings.
  520
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 11 June 1986 at column 188, the Department decided to discontinue the preparation of general average costs.

  Construction cost (excluding land) of recently completed motorways and motorways under construction (all three lane) are as follows:

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate for the latest year available the total cost to the National Health Service of treatment which is a direct result of road traffic accidents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 28 November at columns 164-65.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the proposal by the EEC Commission that 40-ton lorries should have the right of access to United Kingdom roads by 1997 is being considered by the Council of Ministers; and if the matter will fall to be considered by majority vote.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that the Commission report will be submitted formally to the Council shortly. It should be considered during the forthcoming Spanish Presidency.

  The United Kingdom derogations from 40 tonnes and from 11·5 tonnes axle loading were granted under article 75(3) of the treaty which requires unanimity.

  We shall have to demonstrate that the conditions under which the derogations were granted will still apply as we progress with our bridge-strengthening programme.

  Taxis
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to improve the accessibility of taxis for the mobility-handicapped in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  This morning I hosted a press conference at my Department at which I was pleased to announce a new development for wheelchair-accessible taxis. Following discussions with the Metropolitan police, which is responsible for day-to-day taxi licensing questions, from
  521
  1 Feburary 1989 all newly licensed London taxis will need to be able to carry a passenger in a wheelchair and from 1 January 2000 every taxi operating in London will be required to take wheelchairs.

  Accidents (Heavy Goods Vehicles)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer of 2 December, there was any change in the method of calculation of the number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles between 1979 and 1980.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: There was no change in the method of calculation of the number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles between 1979 and 1980.

  The fall in the number of fatal accidents involving heavy goods vehicles between 1979 and 1980 is part of a long-term trend going back to 1969. This trend is illustrated in terms of the numbers of goods vehicles involved in fatal accidents. Between 1969 and 1975, the number of heavy goods vehicles involved in fatal accidents fell from 1,700 to just over 1,000, a drop of nearly 40 per cent. This number remained fairly constant until 1980, when it fell further to 850 heavy goods vehicles in fatal accidents. The fall is likely to have been caused in part by the trend towards fewer, but larger, vehicles, and partly by the shift towards higher standard roads.

  A brief article on this trend was included on page 12 of "Road Accidents Great Britain 1982".

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the trunk road schemes planned for starting in 1989–90 referred to in his Department's news release of 2 November, showing where possible the planned date for construction to start.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following schemes are planned to start in 1989–90:

  (A) Schemes for which statutory procedures are complete

  M3 Compton—Bassett widening

  M40 widening junction 4-5

  A13 Blackwall Tunnel—Cotton Street junction improvement

  A13 West India Dock Road junction improvement

  A16 Boston—Algakirk

  A16 Louth bypass

  A30 Plusha—Bolventor

  A40 Long Lane junction improvement

  A41 Bicester bypass stage 1

  A47 Castor and Ailsworth bypass

  A47 Eye bypass

  A69 Brampton bypass

  A282 Dartford third crossing approach roads

  A303 Ilchester—South Petherton

  A650 Drighlington bypass

  (B) Schemes for which statutory procedures are not complete

  M40 Oxford—Birmingham: Waterstock—Wendlebury

  Al Bramham—Wetherby

  A5/A49 Telford—Shrewsbury

  A6 Quorn and Mountsorrel bypass

  A23 Waddon Marsh Bridge

  A23 Warninglid—Brighton

  A27 Brighton bypass

  A30 Zelah bypass

  A35 Axminster bypass

  A35 Yellowham Hill—Troytown

  A38 Marsh Mills improvement

  A41 Chester improvement

  522

  A41 Whitchurch bypass

  A42 Castle Donington North

  A65 Addingham bypass

  A65 Draughton bypass

  A66 Bowes bypass—County boundary improvement

  Al27 Rayleigh Weir GSJ

  A140 Dickleburgh bypass

  A303 Mere—Wincanton

  A523 Macclesfield Inner Relief Road

  A604 M1-A1 Link: Kettering Southern bypass

  A604 M1-A1 Link: Rothwell—Kettering

  A604 M1-A1 Link: Thrapston—Brampton

  A604 Ml-A1 Link: Advance BR bridge works

  A1079 Market Weighton bypass

  (C) Local Authority schemes approved for S272 grant

  MI junction 34 improvements

  A418 Leighton Linslade bypass

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those trunk road schemes which his Department planned to start in 1988–89 but which have not yet started, showing where known the planned date for construction to start.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, our current intention is to start the following schemes as indicated:

  Target month

  M20 Maidstone to Ashford

  January 1989

  M40 Oxford to Birmingham Gaydon section

  January 1989

  A6 Barton bypass

  December 1988

  A27 Pevensey bypass

  March 1989

  A30 Launceston to Plusha

  February 1989

  A35 Charmouth bypass

  February 1989

  A36 Beckington bypass

  February 1989

  A36 Codford bypass

  March 1989

  A406 Chingford Road to Hale End Road

  March 1989

  A435/A422 Alcester bypasses

  March 1989

  A604 M1-A1 Link: Kettering to Thrapston

  March 1989

  A696 Woolsington bypass

  February 1989

  We aim to start the following schemes as early as possible. Our current expectation is that they may slip into early 1989–90.

  M3 Compton to Bassett widening

  A27 Brighton bypass

  A35 Axminster bypass

  A41 Bicester bypass stage 1

  A65 Addingham bypass

  Al27 Rayleigh Weir GSJ

  A282 Dartford to Thurrock crossing: approach roads

  A303 Ilchester to South Petherton

  A418 Leighton to Linslade bypass

  A604 M1-A1 Link: Rothwell to Kettering

  A604 M1-A1 Link: Thrapston to A14 ST 1

  A650 Drighlington bypass

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the capacity of the trunk roads between the west midlands and the ports situated on the coast of East Anglia, outlining any proposals he has in mind for improvement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are taking forward several schemes to improve routes from the west midlands to the east coast ports including the A11, A47 and A428. In addition, work is to start soon on the new M1-A1 link road which, with the A11 and the A45, will provide the main route between the west midlands and East Anglia.

  A review of the trunk road programme is currently in progress. We expect to make an announcement in the spring.

  Motorways
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those sections of motorway in England which(a) are built to dual two-lane standard and carry average annual daily traffic flows in excess of 54,000 and (b) are built to dual three-lane standard and carry average annual daily traffic flows in excess of 79,000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The sections of motorway in England which are built to dual two-lane standard and which are estimated to carry average annual daily traffic flows (combined directional) in excess of 54,000 in 1987 are listed below.

  Road

  Junctions From

  To

  M63

  1

  2

  M63

  5

  7

  M20

  5

  6

  A57M

  A5103

  C

  M4

  1

  2

  M5

  6

  7

  The sections of motorway in England Which are built to dual three-lane standard and Which are estimated to carry average annual daily traffic flows (combined directional) in excess of 79,000 in 1987 are listed below.

  Junctions

  Road

  From

  To

  M1

  5

  6

  M1

  8

  9

  M1

  11

  14

  M1

  31

  32

  M25

  6

  13

  M25

  15

  19

  M25

  23

  28

  M4

  2

  4B

  M4

  5

  9

  M5

  5

  9

  M5

  1

  2

  M56

  4

  6

  M6

  6

  8

  M6

  9

  10

  M6

  17

  19

  M6

  20

  21A

  M6

  30

  31

  M62

  12

  13

  M62

  M61

  19

  M63

  2

  3

  M63

  10

  Spur

  A38M

  M6

  C

  The sections of motorway in England which are built to dual four-lane standard and which are estimated to carry average annual daily flows (combined directional) in excess of 79,000 in 1987 are listed below.

  Junctions

  Road

  From

  To

  M25

  13

  15

  M61

  1

  2

  A40M

  A40

  M41

  Bottesford Bypass
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received dated 9 November from Mr. Reginald Boyce, chairman of Bottesford parish council, regarding proposed alterations to two junctions on the A52 Bottesford bypass; and what reply he has sent;
  524
  (2) what representations he has received from Councillor A. Burton of Melton borough council dated 15 November regarding proposed alterations to the A52 Bottesford bypass at three specific locations; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We received letters from Mr. Boyce and Councillor Burton on 14 and 28 November. The Department's regional office replied reflecting the advice I gave to my hon. Friend in my letter of 14 October.

  The junction layouts on the A52 Bottesford bypass are appropriate for the conditions and the volume of turning traffic. We shall monitor the situation once the bypass is open to traffic early next year.

  North Devon Link Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to have 60 mph maximum speed limit signs erected along the north Devon link road between Tiverton and Barnstaple.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not our policy to restate the 60 mph national speed limit, which applies to the north Devon link road west of Tiverton, by the erection of speed limit signs.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what security clearance procedures were undergone by Bowe Systems and Machinery United Kingdom staff before being allowed to use the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre processing equipment between 7 and 17 November, and what clearance is required by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre's own staff before they are allowed access to this area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The contract of employment signed by all Bowe Systems and Machinery (UK) Ltd. employees has been amended to cover the requirements of the Data Protection and Official Secrets Act. The area at DVLC containing the Bowe equipment is controlled by a Cardkey entry system. DVLC staff not normally employed in the area can only enter by arrangement with line management.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to launch the next campaign against vehicle excise duty evasion in London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Next spring—probably May. Enforcement continues between campaigns throughout the year.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions about the British Airports Authority's holding of land at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are made by his Department in preparing estimates on the future growth of air traffic up to the year 2005.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We plan to publish new air traffic forecasts for the United Kingdom before the Christmas recess. The commentary on those forecasts will describe the assumptions underlying them.

ENVIRONMENT

  House of Commons (Lighting)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain drawings and specifications of the original chandeliers which illuminated the Chamber before 1941.

  Mr. Chope
  Investigations on these matters are already in hand in view of the possible relevance to eventual recommendations of the Select Committee on televising.

  Water Companies (Foreign Interests)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to in which British water companies foreign companies have control of a sizeable interest and as to what percentage of the shares they own; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has no information which is not already in the public domain. Such investment is subject to the normal provisions of competition and merger law.

  Red List (Dangerous Substances)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the most dangerous substances in the United Kingdom red list.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A consultation paper was issued in July setting out proposals for a new approach towards controlling inputs of the most dangerous substances to water. The paper included proposals for selecting a "red list" of the most dangerous substances, and a provisional initial list of substances, on which comments were invited. The following substances appeared on the provisional list:

  Mercury

  Cadmium

  Gamma-Hexacholrocyclohexane (Lindane)

  DDT

  Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

  Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

  Hexachlorobutacliene (HCBD)

  Aldrin

  Dieldrin

  PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyls)

  Triorganotin Compounds

  Dichlorvos

  Trifluoralin

  Chloroform1

  Carbon Tetrachloride1

  1, 2 Dichloroethane

  Trichlorobenzene

  Azinphos-methyl

  Fenitrothion

  Malathion

  Endosulfan

  Atrazine

  Simazine

  1 Comments were particularly invited on whether these substances should be included because they were the subject of EC directives even though they did not emerge as priority substances from the selection scheme.

  Table 1

  Aggregate Exchequer Grant1

  £ million (1988–89 prices)

  Region

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South East

  5,201

  5,071

  4,808

  4,623

  4,380

  4,428

  4,408

  4,249

  South West

  1,289

  1,232

  1,193

  1,188

  1,110

  1,070

  1,077

  1,091

  East Anglia

  503

  486

  472

  466

  427

  424

  433

  411

  West Midlands

  1,593

  1,546

  1,617

  1,584

  1,476

  1,513

  1,491

  1,420

  526
  Comments received in response to the consultation paper are currently being assessed.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ban the following from rivers(a) mercury, (b) lindane, (c) dieldrin, (d) cadmium, (e) carbon tetrachloride, (f) pentachlorephenol, (g) arsenic and (h) lead, chromium, nickel, zinc and copper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Discharges containing any potentially polluting substances are prohibited without prior authorisation under the normal provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Discharges to rivers of all the substances listed are covered by European Community directives. Community-wide limit values and quality objectives are laid down for mercury, lindane, cadmium, carbon tetrachloride and pentachlorophenol. Those for dieldrin come into force on 1 January 1989. All discharges of these substances must be consented by the appropriate water authority in accordance with the provisions of the directives.

  Additionally, in order to protect the aquatic environment the Government recently announced that all remaining approved uses of dieldrin as a pesticide will be prohibited from 30 March 1989.

  National quality standards are in force for arsenic, lead, chromium, nickel, zinc and copper. These are set out in DoE circular 18/85 (Welsh Office circular 37/85).

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a report on the spillage of 20,000 litres of diesel oil into the tidal beaches of the River Llyst near Exeter in the South West water authority; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The South West water authority has treated this as a local, though serious, pollution incident. I understand that the spillage was successfully contained under the authority's established emergency procedures and that as a result there was limited environmental damage. The authority is now considering the need for any further action arising from the incident.

  Exchequer Grants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show by standard economic region the proportion and amount at 1988 prices of aggregate Exchequer grants paid to councils within these areas for each financial year from 1981–82; and if, in addition he will show separately figures for inner and outer London.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:
  527

  Region

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  East Midlands

  1,247

  1,181

  1,178

  1,266

  1,101

  1,028

  1,058

  1,026

  North West

  2,594

  2,462

  2,453

  2,391

  2,304

  2,232

  2,297

  2,270

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,936

  1,867

  1,844

  1,874

  1,700

  1,622

  1,703

  1,681

  Northern

  1,310

  1,188

  1,182

  1,153

  1,107

  1,019

  1,080

  1,083

  All Regions

  15,673

  15,033

  14,747

  14,545

  13,605

  13,336

  13,547

  13,231

  Inner London Boroughs (including City of London)2

  567

  569

  563

  514

  566

  797

  786

  760

  Outer London Boroughs2

  1,157

  1,168

  1,113

  1,100

  1,050

  1,102

  1,146

  1,155

  1 AEG currently being paid to authorities. These are final amounts for 1981–82 to 1984–85. Cash values have been converted to constant 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  2 Figures for 1986–87 and following years are not comparable with earlier years because of the abolition of the GLC.

  Table 2

  percentage of Aggregate Exchequer Grant1 in each region

  Per cent.

  Region

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South East

  33·2

  33·7

  32·6

  31·8

  32·3

  33·3

  32·5

  32·1

  South West

  8·2

  8·2

  8·1

  8·2

  8·2

  8·0

  7·9

  8·2

  East Anglia

  3·2

  3·2

  3·2

  3·2

  3·1

  3·2

  3·2

  3·1

  West Midlands

  10·2

  10·3

  11·0

  10·9

  10·8

  11·3

  11·0

  10·7

  East Midlands

  8·0

  7·9

  8·0

  8·7

  8·1

  7·7

  7·8

  7·8

  North West

  16·4

  16·4

  16·6

  16·4

  16·9

  16·7

  17·0

  17·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12·4

  12·4

  12·5

  12·9

  12·5

  12·2

  12·6

  12·7

  Northern

  8·4

  7·9

  8·0

  7·9

  8·1

  7·6

  8·0

  8·2

  Inner London Boroughs (including City of London)1

  3·6

  3·8

  3·8

  3·5

  4·2

  6·0

  5·8

  5·7

  Outer London Boroughs1

  7·4

  7·8

  7·5

  7·6

  7·7

  8·3

  8·5

  8·7

  1 Figures for 1986–87 and following years are not comparable with earlier years because of the abolition of the GLC.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show by region in England, showing inner and outer London separately from the south-east region, for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89 constant prices, the amount of aggregate Exchequer grant received by each region.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him earlier today.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of(a) the lowest and (b) the highest level of poll tax to be levied by a local authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. We published on 23 June illustrative figures showing what the community charge would have been in each area, had the new system been in force in 1988–89. Those illustrative figures assume existing levels of spending and existing local authority responsibilities. On that basis, the lowest community charge in England would have been £152 with a full transitional safety net (Teesdale) and £132 with no safety net (Isles of Scilly). The highest would have been £488 with a full safety net (City of London) and £639 with no safety net (Camden).

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are on housing waiting lists, by categories, in the districts of Derbyshire, North-East and Chesterfield.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest available information was provided by north east Derbyshire and Chesterfield 528
  district councils in section B of their 1988 housing investment programme returns (HIFI), copies of which are in the Library.

  Wool Textile Industry
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to meet representatives of the wool textile industry to discuss common standards on effluent from moth-proofing.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet representatives of this industry. However, my Department has discussed with representatives of the industry a report by the water research centre setting out possible environmental quality standards in water for certain substances commonly used as moth-proofing agents. We expect to announce the introduction of environmental quality standards for these substances in England and Wales in the near future. The introduction of such standards in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Resider Programme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice has been given to local authorities on the resider programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities within the programme area were advised when the programme was first approved and will shortly be invited to submit applications.

  Council Home Sales
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many cases under the
  529
  right-to-buy legislation to the latest convenient date the London borough of Camden had failed to meet the dates statutorily required.

  Mr. Trippier
  As at 31 October 1988 there were 40 RTB2 (notice acknowledging or denying the right-to-buy) defaults and 2,590 section 125 (offer notice) defaults.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on allowing local authorities to opt out of direct housing provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have made it clear that we support the idea of councils opting out of direct housing provision, if they do so on the right terms. I have today announced that we have given consent to Chiltern district council to transfer its housing to the Chiltern Hundreds housing association. This is the first such transfer to obtain consent.

  Chiltern council has shown considerable vision and enterprise in preparing for this transfer. It has also demonstrated that the needs and aspirations of both the tenants and the Council can be met and furthered by such a scheme. I am sure that other councils who are considering following the same route will be encouraged.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, prior to deciding about the privatisation of the water industry, he gathered information regarding(a) the cost of repairing the sewage system within a period not longer than five years, (b) the cost of urgently cleaning drinking water of pollutants and poisons and (c) the amount of people who now have free access to water and land for the purposes of sporting and recreation activities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: Information on the estimated costs of improving water and sewerage services is obtained from water authorities each year, while information relating specifically to

  Main housing subsidy and rate fund contributions 1981–82 to 1988–89

  Local authorities in England

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Main housing subsidy

  Total (million)

  881·5

  436·9

  346·8

  353·5

  487·6

  464·9

  443·8

  508·4

  Per dwelling:

  All LAs

  180

  92

  74

  77

  108

  105

  102

  123

  LAs in subsidy

  184

  209

  249

  263

  343

  367

  381

  466

  Negative RFCs

  Total (million)

  -17·1

  -22·1

  -22·0

  -44·2

  -58·3

  -101·3

  -81·4

  -75·2

  Per dwelling:

  All LAs

  -3

  -5

  -6

  -10

  -13

  -23

  -19

  -18

  LAs in subsidy

  -3

  -4

  -4

  -8

  -13

  -11

  -11

  -9

  Positive RFCs

  Total (million)

  419·6

  432·7

  495·2

  431·3

  438·4

  378·0

  495·1

  484·5

  Per dwelling:

  All LAs

  85

  91

  106

  94

  97

  85

  114

  117

  LAs in subsidy

  87

  184

  309

  206

  260

  243

  306

  318

  Note: Not all local authorities in receipt of Exchequer subsidy are also making contributions from the general rate fund.
  530
  privatisation is obtained as necessary. It is not possible to estimate the number of people who might make use of water and land for sporting and recreation purposes where there is free access.

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether steps are to be taken by his Department to renovate the inscriptions on the memorial plaques in Westminster Hall where such work is urgently needed.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: Since wrote to the hon. Member about this matter, English Heritage has advised that no further cleaning of the plaques should be carried out pending a long-term solution to the problem. Discussions with experts at the Victoria and Albert museum's department of metalwork conservation are continuing.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much subsidy has been paid and is estimated to be paid in respect of authorities for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1989–90 from the Exchequer, both in total and expressed as a subsidy per dwelling for the total number of dwellings in local authority control and in respect of those authorities in receipt of subsidy; and what is the position, expressed in similar terms, for rate fund contributions, for both negative and positive contributions.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: Housing subsidy up to 1980–81 was paid under a different system, so I am using 1981–82 as the first year. The information requested is set out in the tables and is based on data provided by local authorities in their subsidy claim forms. The rate fund contribution figures (RFCs) are net amounts. The main housing subsidy figures are based on the latest entitlement claimed to date by local authorities, and the 1987–88 and 1988–89 figures are their estimates. The figures for 1989–90 are not yet published.

  Rural Housing Associations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to how many properties are now covered by the rural county-based housing associations established under the sponsorship of the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust;

  (2) what level of support grant was given by Government-sponsored agencies to the rural county-based housing associations for the last financial year; and what is the current level of Government support;

  (3) what level of support grant was given by Government-sponsored agencies to the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust for the last financial year; and what is the current level of Government support;

  (4) how many new housing associations have been created in the current year in rural areas with support from central Government.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The Housing Corporation has nine rural county-based associations currently registered with it of which one was registered this year. Those associations have 50 properties in management wth a further 144 properties approved for funding or in the pipeline.

  In 1987–88 the Housing Corporation allocated grants of £4,547,000 to projects by rural county-based associations. This year the corporation has allocated £5,209,000 to such projects.

  In 1987–88 the Rural Development Commission gave a grant of £112,500 towards the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust's (NACRT's) running costs. The Department has given approval for the Commission to pay grant to NACRT of up to £315,000 in this financial year.

  Maxwell House, Holborn
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent to date by the Property Services Agency on alterations to Maxwell house, Holborn, EC1; what is the proposed use of the office space in question; when it will be occupied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Ridley
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: Negotiations for Maxwell House began in 1986 on behalf of Customs and Excise as a result of the impending expiry of a lease of one of the buildings occupied by them. Customs and Excise have re-appraised their accommodation needs having regard to the Government's relocation policy and have been able to reduce their requirement for office space in central London. A number of carefully costed options are being considered by Ministers and an announcement will be made shortly. Full account will be taken of expenditure to date on alterations to Maxwell house and its future role as part of the Government's office estate.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will consider seeking to amend statutes in order that a duty be placed upon his Department to ensure as far as is practicable that benefits are taken up by potential claimants as well as being available for claimants;
  532
  (2) if he will introduce legislation imposing a statutory duty on his Department to encourage the take-up of benefits administered by them.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The Department already aims to ensure that members of the public have ready access to comprehensive, accurate and comprehensible information about benefit entitlement. This is done at national level by identifying the most effective and practical means of communication and also by a wide variety of initiatives taken at regional and local levels to promote awareness of the benefits available.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the latest figures for(a) the average length of time in processing claims for attendance allowance and (b) the numbers of cases which have been delayed and the reasons for those delays.

  Mr. Scott
  The average processing time for attendance allowance claims is currently 7·3 weeks. Claims may take longer than average to process for a variety of reasons. These include difficulties in arranging medical examination of the claimant or in establishing a firm prognosis; the need to obtain information from the claimant's general practitioner, hospitals he has attended or a consultant; and inquiries about periods the claimant has spent in hospital or other residential accommodation. Figures are not kept for the numbers of such cases.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received recommendations from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on sensorineural hearing loss for merchant seamen in the schedule of prescribed diseases and injuries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We received a report on occupational deafness from the council last month. It is being considered.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to make any changes in the age limit for applications for mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  As my right hon. Friend announced on 27 October, we shall be bringing forward legislation to extend the upper age limit for receipt of the allowance from 75 to 80, as an interim measure pending our consideration of the series of reports on the survey of disabled people undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people there are in receipt of(a) mobility allowance, (b) attendance allowance, lower and higher rates, (c) war pensioners' mobility supplement, (d) invalid care allowance and (e) severe disablement allowance as at the latest available date.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.
  533

  Benefit

  Numbers of recipients

  Mobility allowance

  1554,000

  Attendance allowance

  Lower rate

  2382,000

  Higher rate

  2259,000

  War pensioners' mobility supplement

  314,500

  Invalid care allowance

  4108,000

  Severe disablement allowance

  2260,000

  1 At 2 December 1988.

  2 At 4 April 1987.

  3 At 30 September 1988.

  4 At 28 November 1988.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest information he has regarding the numbers and proportion of unemployment benefit disqualification cases in the Chesterfield area in which the disqualification was imposed for the maximum period of 26 weeks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available. We are currently monitoring the operation of the disqualification rules on the basis of a sample of cases across the country. The results of the survey, which will not allow analysis of the position in any single office, should be available next year.

  Attendance Allowance (Mr. Bowell junior)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why has his Department's overseas branch failed to pay the attendance allowance for Mr. Bowell junior of 23B La Vallesa, Shangrila, Calpe Alicante, Spain, formerly of 80 Blatchcombe road, Paignton, details of which were set out in his letter to the hon. Member for South Hams on 10 October; how much is owing; and when it will be paid.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrears of attendance allowance for Mr. Bowell junior, amounting to £774·33 for the period 4 July 1988 to 14 December 1988, have been authorised for payment and will be issued to Mrs. Bowell this week. I very much regret the delay in issuing this payment.

  Retirement Pension (Mr. and Mrs. Bowell)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange for £269·80, due to Mr. and Mrs. Bowell of 23B La Vallesa, Shangrila, Calpe Alicante, Spain, formerly of 80 Blatchcombe road, Paignton, to be sent to them immediately through his Department's overseas branch; and why there has been a five month delay in paying their retirement pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department had not been aware of any problems with Mr. and Mrs. Bowell's pensions. However, checks now show that two payments totalling £334·46 which the Department issued to Mr. Bowell's bank were not received there. The original payments have 534
  now been stopped and, assuming that they prove not to have already been paid, replacements will be issued urgently.

  Pensioners
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the income sources that were included in his estimate of the increase in pensioners total incomes since 1979,Official Report, 27 October, column 456, and the percentage by which each category increased in real terms over the same period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Source

  Per cent.1

  Retirement pension and other state benefits

  +19

  Occupational pension

  +56

  Investment income

  +64

  Earnings

  -28

  Total gross

  +24

  Tax and National Insurance contributions

  +37

  Total net

  +23

  1 Percentage increase of average amount (1979–86).

  Note: In all cases, the figures are rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the 23 per cent. increase in the real income of the average pensioner between 1979 and 1986 is due to increases in the national insurance pension, how much to the 0020payment of the state earnings-related pension scheme; and how much to the payment of occupational pensions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available in he form requested. The available information shows that between 1979 and 1986 pensioners experienced an average real increase in gross incomes of 24 per cent. which was broken down as follows:

  Breakdown of 24 per cent.

  Retirement pension (including state earnings-related pension) and income-related benefits

  41 per cent.

  Occupational pensions

  37 per cent.

  All other income

  22 per cent.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the weekly payments from occupational pension schemes by decile or quartile with respect to the number of recipients over pension age; and what is the median weekly payment from occupational pension schemes paid to recipients over pension age.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. The following table specifies the amount per week (rounded to the nearest lop) received in 1986 by single and married men and women over pension age in receipt of an occupational pension.
  535

  Single

  Married

  Men Aged 65 and over

  Women Aged 60 and over

  Men Aged 65 and over

  Women With husband aged 65 and over

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1st quartile

  3·50

  5·10

  5·70

  2·50

  2nd quartile

  10·80

  10·70

  17·20

  9·00

  3rd quartile

  27·70

  23·70

  43·00

  20·50

  4th quartile

  87·20

  71·10

  131·20

  49·30

  Median

  16·00

  14·50

  25·70

  13·00

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons and what proportion of those over pensionable age are in receipt of payments from an occupational pension scheme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. In 1986 about 3·4 million tax units in Great Britain (that is, single people over pensionable age and married couples where the man is over pensionable age) were in receipt of an occupational pension—a proportion of 50 per cent.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund for 1988–89 of the 2 per cent. subsidy payable under sections 1 and 7 of the Social Security Act 1986; and how much of this relates to contributions in respect of the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The general rule is that incentives payable under sections 1 and 7 of the Social Security Act 1986 in respect of 1987–88 and 1988–89, will be paid in 1989–90. The Government Actuary has followed this assumption when deriving the estimate that £310 million of incentives will be paid in 1989–90, of which £80 million relates to contributions in respect of 1987–88, and £230 million relates to 1988–89.

  All figures are consistent with the Government Actuary's report on the uprating and rerating orders, (Cm. 537).

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what average family credit payment was assumed in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper; what was the average payment awarded in each month since April; and what is the average amount now in payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1988 public expenditure White Paper estimate of £409 million and an average of 470,000 recipients presupposed an average award of £16£73 a week. Indications are that current awards average over £25 a week. Precise information for earlier months is not available. Revised estimates of total expenditure and the numbers of claimants in 1988–89 will be published in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper in the new year.

  "Reform of Social Security"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a revised version of tables P1 to P6 of the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security" taking into account changes in prices, earnings and other relevant factors since 1985;
  536
  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the figures given in his answer on social security benefits on 7 December, Official Report, column 182, at 1988 prices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the anticipated end of the year out-turn on the numbers of claimants and levels of expenditure, (b) the most recent figures for the numbers of claimants and levels of expenditure and (c) the anticipated numbers of claimants and levels of expenditure for 1988–89 for (i) funeral payments from the social fund and (ii) maternity payments from the social fund.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These figures are not yet available and I shall write to the hon. Member when they are.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) ceased to claim or lost entitlement of income support since April, to the most recent date as a result of (i) finding employment, (ii) the ruling that work expenses are no longer deductible from earnings for income calculations, (iii) the reduction from 30 to 24 hours of the full-time work qualification, (iv) the removal of benefit rights from 16 and 17-year-olds, and (v) other, (b) the amounts saved in each category, (c) what he anticipates the end of year outcome will be for numbers and amounts saved for each category and (d) what he anticipates the numbers and amounts saved in 1988–89 will be.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he anticipates will be the end of year cost of housing benefit transitional payments; how many claimants he anticipates will have been awarded such payments; what he anticipates the costs and numbers of claimants in 1988–89 will be following the announcement of the £2 erosion factor; and how many payments and how much in each of the above will be received by pensioners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the time the transitional payment unit was set up it was announced that £65 million was being made available to cover the cost of the payments. Applications for transitional payments will continue to be
  537
  received until 31 March 1989. Until they have all been received it is not possible to calculate the final cost of housing benefit transitional payments or to give the final number who will receive payments, either now or after the erosion factor is applied. Information on pensioners as a group is not yet available from the unit; we hope to be able to supply this at a later date.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated number of summer school leavers currently on extended child benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 5 December 1988 there were 16,109 16 and 17-year-old summer school leavers whose parents were receiving extended child benefit in respect of them.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more people he estimates would be eligible for cold weather payments if entitlement were extended to income support claimants with children aged under 11 years and with savings over £500.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: If eligibility were extended to families with children under 11 and the £500 capital rule were to be abolished, about 1 million more people could be expected to qualify.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the changes in regulations or procedures which have had knock-on effects on the unemployment figures and (b) the changes made to the basis for calculation of the unemployment figures since 1979, with a brief explanation of the reason for each change.

  Mr. Lee
  I am sending the hon. Member a list of the changes affecting the unemployment figures since 1979 which was published on page 422 of the October 1986 issue of Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library. Since then there has been one further significant change in the coverage of the unemployment count resulting from the recent extension of the YTS guarantee, and the introduction in September 1988 of new benefit regulations, for under 18-year-olds. Further details are given in an article on page 660 in the December 1988 issue of Employment Gazette.

  In addition, as described on page 56 of the August 1988 issue of Employment Gazette, a further minor amendment was made in July 1988 to the denominators used for calculating national and regional unemployment rates, to include those on work-related Government training schemes in line with their inclusion in the statistics of the employed work force. This change did not affect the numbers included in the unemployment count.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his answer of Wednesday 7 December.Official Report, columns 234-36, what would be the current level of unemployment if calculated on the same basis as the 1971 figure.
  538
  Mr. Lee
  My Department does not estimate unemployment on any previous definition as it is impossible to estimate what the various effects of changes in coverage of the unemployment count would now be. I refer the hon. Member to page 422 of the October 1986 issue of Employment Gazette and page 660 of the December 1988 issue for more detailed information.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the client group are on employment training at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to estimate the total number of people in the employment training client group. However, in October 1988 some 1,143,000 claimants aged 18 to 60 had been unemployed for over six months. There are currently some 97,000 people on employment training.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether Lloyds Bank, Midland Bank, the Ford Motor Co., British Airways, British Gas, British Coal and Marks and Spencer are participating in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The companies listed are not yet involved in employment training as training managers or training agents, although they may be providing places to other training managers. Marks and Spencer, British Coal, British Gas and the Ford Motor Co. are in the process of consultation with the Training Agency about becoming involved in employment training as training managers or as placement providers.

  A full list of training agents and training managers will be published in January, although details of employers who are involed in employment training as placement providers will not be included.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the London borough of Wandsworth is taking part in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The London borough of Wandsworth is providing support for the Wandsworth Training Consortium which is operating as a training manager.

  Training Places (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of training places available under YTS for those aged 16 to 17 years in Nottingham.

  Mr. Cope
  I am satisfied that there are more than sufficient places available to meet demand.

  Child Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what conditions claimants on employment training schemes are entitled to child care payments; and what is the total number of(a) cases who have so far been granted child care payments on employment training and (b) requests for child care support on employment training, in each standard region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All lone parents entering employment training may have child care costs of up to £50 per week
  539
  per child paid on their behalf. Payments are made directly to the child minder, day nursery or creche by the training manager who is responsible for organising the training programme.

  Information on the number of employment training participants qualifying for child care payments is not available. It is planned to collect the information at the end of March. The results will be available at the end of April.

  Economic League
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct staff at jobcentres to scrutinise cases of persistent refusal by employers to employ particular individuals; if he will instruct such staff to inquire of prospective employers if they use the services of the Economic League or similar bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is for employers to make their own decisions about who they should employ. However, staff at jobcentres are already instructed to question employers whom they suspect are not operating within the equal opportunities or other legislation. My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend the present arrangements.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an assessment of the implications of the activities of the Economic League and similar organisations for the job prospects of those placed on their lists.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Information on Employees
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to establish an offence of supplying false information on a prospective employee, or information without the knowledge of that employee, to an employer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  School Leavers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown on summer school leavers by the following categories(a) the number in higher or further education, (b) the number in employment, (c) the number in YTS and (d) the number on extended child benefit.

  Mr. Cope
  The estimated number of this summer's school leavers in higher or further education will not be available, for England and Wales, until spring 1989 and, for Scotland, until late 1990. Information on the number of school leavers in employment is not available.

  At 31 October, the latest available date, there were 435,200 young people in YTS, but it is not possible to say how many of those left school this summer.

  Child benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  YTS
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will supply monthly totals for those aged 16 and 17 years not eligible for income support 540
  indicating (a) the number receiving extended child benefit, (b) the number on bridging allowance, (c) the number not on bridging allowance and who have not yet received an offer of a YTS place and (d) the number on YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  Child benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Information on the number of young people on bridging allowance is available on request. It is not possible to provide information on the number not on bridging allowance and who have not yet received an offer of a YTS place.

  Figures on the number of people on YTS are published monthly in the Employment Gazette.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time taken for payments in respect of child care costs for the children of lone parents on employment training schemes to be paid to the carers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: The arrangements for payment of child care costs for lone parent trainees in employment training should enable training agents and training managers to make the payments without delay, both when a trainee first qualifies for payment and subsequently.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many participants in employment training schemes qualify for child care payments; what is the percentage take up; and what is the total cost(a) nationally, (b) in the northern region and (c) in Durham, North-West constituency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: Information on the number of employment training participants qualifying for child care payments is not yet available. It is planned to collect information at the end of March and results should be available by the end of April.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists (North West)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the in-patient waiting list figures in March for the North Western regional health authority; and what were the figures for the previous year, and 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were 61,800 patients on the inpatient waiting list in North Western region at 31 March 1988. This compares with 63,900 at March 1987 and 77,400 at March 1979.

  Vaccinations (Charges)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to introducing charges for vaccinations obtained for the purpose of foreign travel.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to introduce special charges for this purpose.

  RAWP (Dorset)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the transfer of
  541
  resources under the resources allocation working party to the east and west Dorset area authorities; and what overall increases in total resources have been achieved since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The resource allocation working party formula governs allocation to regional health authorities. In making allocations to district health authorities, regions are not expected strictly to follow RAWP principles. The Wessex regional health authority in 1988–89 allocated revenue resources of £81,326,000 to east Dorset and £40,188,000 to west Dorset. Since 1982, when they were established, east Dorset's allocation has increased by 15·4 per cent. in real terms. West Dorest, which is nearer to its regional target, has received a 4·1 per cent. increase.

  Children in Distress
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce precautionary measures to prevent unsuitable individuals from establishing telephone counselling services for children in distress; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. I have no reason to believe that this is necessary. If the hon. Member has evidence of unsuitable operation of such services she should send it to the police and the director general of Oftel Telecommunications.

  AIDS and HIV
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will adopt as his policy the model policy and guidance on AIDS and HIV infection services provided by the Association of London Authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is important that local authorities should respond positively to the challenge of HIV infection and AIDS. Government Departments have issued guidance to assist authorities in this, but it is for individual authorities to decide whether and to what extent they wish to adopt the model policy developed by the Association of London Authorities.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received following his announcement that health authorities will screen patients anonymously for HIV.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding his decision to introduce anonymous blood tests for AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give his reasons for not accepting the advice of the Select Committee on Social Services relating to the anonymised screening of blood for HIV.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 2 December at columns 439-40.

  Patients (Statistics)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in National Health 542
  Service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were 6·62 million in-patient cases treated in National Health Service hospitals in England during the 1987–88 financial year. Earlier figures were for calendar years and in 1979 5·40 million in-patient cases were treated, a rise of over a million or more than 22 per cent.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals his Department has to improve care for the mentally handicapped.

  Mrs. Currie
  Our current policy is to develop at local level, in collaboration with statutory and voluntary agencies, a comprehensive and integrated range of health and social services for mentally handicapped people and their families.

  To this end the Department this year issued guidance to health authorities that by 1991 every district should have policy statements and action plans for meeting the needs of mentally handicapped people including those with special needs.

  Grading
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet representatives of the nursing unions to discuss the regrading of nurses and midwives.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will now arrange to meet trade union representatives of Health Service employees to discuss regrading.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 5 December and representatives of the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December. 1 am not prepared to meet representatives of those trades unions whose members are taking part in industrial action over the current regrading exercise while that action continues.

  I should also make it clear that negotiations over the terms and conditions of nurses and midwives employment are a matter for the relevant Whitley council. I cannot take over the role of the Whitley council management side and direct meetings between me and trade union leaders should not be seen as a substitute for Whitley council discussions.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received from nursing unions concerning the current regrading procedure.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received concerning the regrading of midwives by district health authorities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received a number of representations about the re-grading exercise for nurses and midwives, including some from trade unions. I have made it clear, however, that I will not meet representatives of trade unions engaged in attempting to organise industrial action. Neither the Royal College of Nursing nor the Royal College of Midwives have done so and I
  543
  therefore met representatives of these Colleges on, respectively, 5 and 7 December. Both unions joined me in condemning industrial action, and agreed to support measures designed to help the appeals process work more quickly and effectively. We agreed to continue our efforts to dispel some misunderstandings which appear to have arisen over the regrading exercise. As a result of these friendly and constructive meetings, I am more certain than ever that the new grading structure will come to be seen as a turning point in securing a properly rewarded career structure for the country's nurses and midwives.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of nurses who have received a new grade under the recent review procedures(a) nationally and (b) in the Barnsley district health authority have appealed against their grade.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals have been made by nurses against their new grading; and when he expects the appeals procedure to be completed.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals are currently being heard concerning health workers' regrading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Appeals against grading are a local matter and we do not hold information centrally on the number of appeals lodged. I recognise the importance of dealing with appeals quickly as well as fairly and I have

  The new clincial grading structure for nursing, midwifery and health visitor staff

  Percentage of old clinical grades assimilated to each of thenew clinical grades on the basis of duties and responsibilities on 1 April 1988: Scunthorpe

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  Previous grade

  Staff in post (whole time equivalents)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  1G

  H

  I

  Nursing Auxiliary

  265·30

  245·80

  19·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nursery Nurse

  4·20

  —

  4·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled Nurse2

  238·70

  —

  —

  150·40

  88·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled District Nurse2

  1·70

  —

  —

  —

  1·70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Enrolled Nurse2

  1·40

  —

  —

  —

  1·40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse2

  227·30

  —

  —

  —

  67·70

  143·90

  15·70

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Midwife2

  17·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister2

  11·60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·00

  6·60

  —

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister II2

  137·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59·20

  77·00

  0·80

  —

  Midwifery Sister II2

  41·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14·30

  27·20

  —

  —

  District Nurse (Sister II)2

  37·90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·20

  33·70

  3·00

  —

  Nursing Sister I

  1·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  —

  Midwifery Sister I

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Visitor

  36·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35·20

  1·00

  —

  Senior Nurse 8

  5·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·00

  1·00

  Senior Nurse 8 (Midwife)

  1·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  —

  Senior Nurse 7

  14·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14·50

  Senior Nurse 7 (Midwife)

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  Clinical Teacher

  3·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·30

  —

  Fieldwork Teacher

  5·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·00

  —

  Practical Work Teacher

  6·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·00

  —

  Tutor

  6·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·00

  Tutor Midwife

  0·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·50

  Post Basic Students

  Enrolled

  19·00

  —

  —

  19·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sister II

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  544
  asked RHA chairmen to adopt a number of measures designed to speed up the appeals system. These include setting up officer level investigations to resolve any obvious mistakes and points of difficulty before the formal appeal stage is reached, and establishing wherever possible more than one appeals' panel. The great majority of officer level investigations for current appeals can be completed by the end of January, and I shall be discussing with chairmen whether it will be possible to have completed the appeals process locally by the spring. However, I have made it clear that no appeals will be heard in any unit from staff who are not working normally so long as they continue their industrial action.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the nurses' grading dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The vast majority of nurses and midwives are working normally and are very satisfied with the outcome of this year's pay award and the associated regrading exercise. This is hardly surprising because it gives them an average pay increase of 17·9 per cent. at a cost to the taxpayer of almost £1,000 million.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from each of the old grades have been assimilated to each of the new grades in the recent clinical grading structure in Scunthorpe district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.
  545

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  Previous grade

  Staff in post (Whole time equivalents

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  1G

  H

  I

  Totals

  1,086·60

  245·80

  23·70

  169·40

  161·10

  166·40

  97·00

  173·10

  25·10

  25·00

  1Excludes some additional G posts which health authorities have indicated they intend to create in future on existing two-sister wards.

  2Excludes Post Basic Students.

  Community Care
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implementation of the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) earlier.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about future policies on community care.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received seeking expedition of his response to the Griffiths report on community care.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implementation of the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about future policies on community care.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about future policies on community care.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implementations of the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about future policies on community care.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) earlier today.

  Medical Personnel (Statistics)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what are the net increases in the numbers of doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The overall changes in doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives between September 1979 and September 1987 are:

  Whole-time equivalents

  Percentage change

  Medical

  Increase

  4,030

  +11·1

  Dental

  Decrease

  50

  -1·7

  Nursing

  Increase

  42,430

  +12·5

  Midwifery

  Increase

  3,170

  +15·5

  Bolton General Hospital
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to visit the new genito-urinary department at Bolton general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have no plans to visit the Bolton general hospital in the near future. The new genito-urinary medicine department has been developed at a cost of £116,000. The facilities that it contains will allow the provision of improved services for the counselling, diagnosis and treatment of patients with genito-urinary infections, including those with conditions related to the HIV infection.

  RAWP (Northern Region)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the funding for the Northern regional health authority will be brought up to the resources allocation working party level.

  Mr. Mellor
  We hope to be able to announce the 1989–90 resource allocations to regional health authorities shortly. The Government are considering the National Health Service management board's report on the review of the resource allocation working party (RAWP) formula in the wider context of the National Health Service review. Longer-term resource allocation decisions will be informed by the outcome of that wider review.

  Hypothermia
  26. Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist elderly people to combat hypothermia during the winter months.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to assist elderly people to combat hypothermia during the winter months.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist elderly people to combat hypothermia during the winter months.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist elderly people to combat hypothermia during the winter months.

  Mrs. Currie
  On 17 November the Government launched this years "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign. This is a health promotion campaign designed to give people information and advice about how to combat the risks of cold weather and is supported by the Departments of Health, Social Security, Environment, Welsh Office and Energy and several voluntary organisations.

  As well as supporting the "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, the Department of Social Security provides cold weather payments, the Department of the

  547
  Environment runs the home insulation grants scheme, and the Department of Energy supports Neighbourhood Energy Action, which organises community insulation projects.

  We printed around 750,000 copies of the campaign booklet and there has already been sufficient demand to order a reprint. The telephone helpline on 0800-289404, the Winter Warmth line, is receiving around 200 calls a day.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to the elderly about wrapping up more warmly during winter periods.

  Mrs. Currie
  Advice on keeping warm in winter is given in the "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign.

  We firmly believe that vulnerable people should be encouraged to take sensible precautions including dressing warmly in cold weather.

  Office Space (London)
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to rent further office space in central London.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have no plans to rent additional space in central London. We intend to relocate the work of at least 1,000 posts away from the south east to areas where recruitment is easier and rents lower. We plan to vacate some buildings which are in areas of London with high rents.

  Medical Techniques
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect of improved medical techniques on his Department's budget.

  Mr. Mellor
  There is no precise measure of the resource implications of medical advance, which can both raise or lower costs of treatment and care.

  Pensioners (Health in Winter)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to give any further advice to pensioners on keeping healthy during the winter months.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations from pensioners or pensioners' organisations about the advice given by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) at Reading, on the subject of keeping healthy during the winter.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to give any further advice to pensioners on keeping healthy during the winter months.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations from pensioners or pensioners' organisations about the advice, given by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on the subject of keeping healthy during the winter.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to give any further advice to pensioners on keeping healthy during the winter months.
  548
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations from pensioners or pensioners' organisations about the advice given by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on the subject of keeping healthy during the winter.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) earlier today.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the results of pilot projects on resource management in hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  The pilot projects will, in accordance with the agreement entered into by the joint sponsors of the initiative, the NHS management board and the joint consultants committee of the British Medical Association be evaluated fully in October 1989. Recently, interim progress reports have been produced by the various sites and organisations involved in the initiative. These reports indicate that good progress has been made, the commitment of local doctors and staff has been strong and parts of the approach can already usefully be recommended to other health authorities.

  Medical Diagnoses
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new arrangements his Department is planning to ensure that untried and untested medical diagnoses are properly validated before acceptance within the profession and the courts.

  Mrs. Currie
  No new arrangements are planned. It is a matter for the clinical judgment of individual clinicians to decide what use they should make of novel diagnostic techniques. On occasion, to assist the medical profession, we issue guidance with the help of the standing medical advisory committee, as with the diagnosis of child sexual abuse. The courts reach their decisions on the basis of the evidence put to them.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has received which could help to reduce the incidence of food poisoning.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Food Act 1984 and the Food Hygiene Regulations are being reviewed and it is proposed to include provisions giving greater control over suspect food and hazardous food premises, making food hygiene training of food handlers a statutory requirement and extending statutory temperature control of food from the catering sector to include food sold by retail.

  Specific measures are of course introduced to deal with particular food poisoning problems, as in our present concern over salmonella in eggs.

  Eggs
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to require eggs to carry Government health warnings;

  (2) what advice his Department is issuing to employers and employees about eating eggs.
  549
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The matter must be kept in proportion. As a sensible precaution, those most at risk—the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women—should follow the advice of the chief medical officer and eat only eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid. However, the risk is very small and healthy people can continue to eat eggs cooked however they wish. We will continue to reassure people on these points as necessary.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give consideration to involving local government environmental health departments in the control of egg production.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Environmental health departments of local authorities are responsible for environmental issues arising from egg production and for hygiene issues post-production.

  We have asked them to assist in promulgating my Department's advice to manufacturers, caterers and consumers locally. We have no current plans to involve them in the control of egg production.

  Midwives
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to discuss conditions of service with representatives of the midwives.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Negotiations over the terms and conditions of nurses' and midwives' employment are a matter for the relevant Whitley council. However, I met representatives of the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December and had a friendly and useful discussion about a range of issues, including the new grading structure and the appeals process.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken of clinical experience when setting the grades of midwives; and what representations he has received from Merseyside midwives concerning their regrading.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received some 50 representations from midwives in the Mersey region. I have nothing to add to what I told the House in the debate on the Adjournment on 7 December at columns 407-16.

  NHS (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve efficiency in the National Health Service in the Yorkshire region.

  Mr. Mellor
  Ministers and the National Health Service management board regularly review the performance of all regional health authorities, culminating in an annual ministerial review meeting after which an action plan is set for the coming year. Yorkshire RHA's latest review was in July. A record of that meeting, together with the action plan for 1988–89 which included a number of measures to improve efficiency, was placed in the Library.

  Donor Cards
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on the current campaign on donor cards.
  550
  Mrs. Currie
  As a result of the Department's advertising campaign and media concern, particularly television, public interest in organ donation is high. So far this year some 14 million cards have been distributed compared with 5 million last year.

  The range of high street outlets for the cards has been considerably extended through the Department's recent joint venture with the Healthcare Foundation and other initiatives are being discussed. The Departments of Health and Social Security recently issued donor cards to all members of staff.

  Kidney transplants in the United Kingdom have risen by 76 per cent. between 1979 and 1987 and other organ transplants have also increased. This year has been a particularly good year for transplants. Because of excellent publicity at the beginning of the year, the first six months saw a 32 per cent. increase in transplants over last year. We expect that 1989 will be a record year for donations.

  Health Care Facilities
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards the establishment of an internal and external market in the provision of health care facilities in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are considering a number of proposals for improving the delivery of health care and will bring forward our proposals in a White Paper to be published in the new year.

  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 5 December.

  We agreed that we should redouble our efforts to explain the regrading exercise and to publicise the very substantial pay increases that the overwhelming majority of nurses and midwives are now receiving. As a result. for the first time the nursing profession will have the proper career structure for which the RCN in particular has consistently argued.

  Our discussion concentrated on the working of the appeals procedure, which we both agreed was the outstanding issue. We regretted that the process had been clogged up by the number of spurious claims that nurses and midwives had unfortunately been encouraged to submit. These were clearly delaying progress for those few with genuine grievances. In order to help those nurses and midwives, we agreed that in future health authorities should set up a sifting process at officer level which would enable them to identify and correct any obvious errors in grading in advance of a full appeal hearing. In addition, I have asked RHA chairmen to see that the sifting process is completed, if at all possible, by the end of January. General managers will also be asked to make sure that the operation of the appeals procedure is regarded as a management priority.

  The RCN joined us in condemning industrial action and stressed its commitment to putting patients first.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce restrictions on the represcribing of benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  I share the hon. Member's concern about represcribing of benzodiazepines, but we have no plans to introduce restrictions because doctors must be free to prescribe in a way that best suits the needs of each patient. All drugs should be represcribed under controlled conditions and I welcome the initiative of those general practitioners who have begun the difficult process of reviewing the treatment of those of their patients who are on long-term benzodiazepine therapy.

  Maternity Units (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has now received details of the decision by Leicestershire community health council to oppose the closure of the maternity units at St. Mary's hospital, Melton Mowbray, and the Rutland Memorial hospital; and whether he will now advise Leicestershire health authority to abandon those proposals rather than proceed to statutory determination by himself.

  Mrs. Currie
  The views of the community health council have not been formally sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  Leicestershire health authority is currently consulting on these proposals; the consultation period ends on 31 December. It would not be right for me to intervene in the way proposed. I must remain impartial as the final decision on the proposals may have to be taken by Ministers, if the community health council opposes the proposals.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of nurses and midwives who have accepted the current pay offer; what percentage of the total number of nurses and midwives employed by the National Health Service this represents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government's decision to implement in full the recommendations for 1988–89 of the review body for nursing staff, midwives and health visitors was accepted in April by the representatives of all nursing staff, midwives and health visitors within the National Health Service. The acceptance was very prompt, which is not surprising given that this year's pay award and regrading have resulted in an average increase of 17·9 per cent. for nurses and midwives. We do not know how many nurses and midwives are still appealing against the grade that they were given in the light of that acceptance, but the vast majority have accepted their grade and all nurses and midwives have received their pay rise.

  Nurses (West Midlands)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) state enrolled nurses, (b) staff nurses and (c) ward sisters in (i) the west midlands region and (ii) nationally have received less then 5 per cent. pay increase in 1988.
  552
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No staff nurse or enrolled nurse has received an increase of less than 7 per cent. and 39 per cent. of hospital nursing sisters have been graded at scale F and have received increases ranging from 4·2 per cent. to 13·3 per cent. depending on the incremental point on the pay scale at which the individual is entitled to be paid. We do not hold information about the incremental position of those in each of the new grades centrally.

  Drugs
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on the current campaign against drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government national publicity campaigns against drugs misuse are part of an overall strategy to reduce both the supply of and the demand for illegal drugs. Independent evaluation shows that the campaigns so far have been widely noticed and reinforced young people's resistance to drug misuse. On 21 November a new phase of GB-wide publicity was launched to emphasise the dangers associated with injecting any drug.

  Leukaemia (North Humberside)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the findings of the research programmes funded by his Department on factors affecting the incidence of leukaemia among children in parts of north Humberside.

  Mrs. Currie
  Research into biomedical questions is primarily the responsibility of the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. The report by Dr. Ray Cartwright on the incidents of childhood leukaemias on north Humberside, which also included information on the incidence of other cancers in children and adults, has been referred for an independent expert assessment and advice as to whether further research may be needed. We will announce the results as soon as possible.

  Wandsworth Health Authority
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to visit the Wandsworth health authority; and what issues he expects to discuss.

  Mrs. Currie
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Wandsworth health authority, but I visited the authority on Monday 5 December when I went to the drug dependency unit at Springfield hospital and also the women's day unit at St. George's hospital, Tooting. In both cases services have transferred smoothly from other facilities and are functioning well.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the administration of the cervical cytology testing service in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We issued Departmental guidance on the provision of cervical cancer screening in circular HC(88)1, a copy of which is available in the Library. Its local
  553
  application is a matter for the health authorities and family practitioner committees concerned. The hon. Member may wish to pursue any local matters with the chairman of the appropriate health authority or family practitioner committee.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has routinely to include women aged 65 years and over in screening programmes for breast cancer.

  Mrs. Currie
  The NHS breast cancer screening programme is modelled on the recommendations made in the Forrest report. Having considered the incidence of the disease and the evidence on the benefits of screening in different age groups, the report recommended that the 50-64 age group should be the first to be selected for routine screening. We are following this recommendation. The Forrest report also suggested that screening should be available on request for women aged 65 and over. We have accepted this advice and, once the service becomes available in an area, any woman aged 65 and over who wants to be screened should be able to contact her local screening office to make an appointment.

  Our main effort now is to get the arrangements running throughout the country and we would not expect to make any changes until we have had some experience of the present system. The advisory committee on breast cancer screening, which is advising on the development of the service, is keeping the question of age under review.

  Any woman, irrespective of her age, who has the slightest cause for concern—for example, a small lump—should arrange to see her GP at once.

  Cook-chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals are currently providing maternity patients with food produced through the cook-chill process.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities are responsible for the delivery of catering services which meet the needs of all their patient groups. Information on the production of food for specific categories of patients is not collected centrally.

  "Promoting Better Health"
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report on progress on the primary health care reforms as outlined in "Promoting Better Health."

  Mr. Mellor
  Discussions are well advanced with representatives of the primary care professions on the implementation of measures to achieve the objectives of the White Paper, "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249). Some changes are currently being introduced. For example, dental practice advisers are being appointed and will take up posts early in the new year and extra funds have been made available in the present financial year for the training of family doctors' practice nurses. The Health and Medicines Act 1988, which received Royal Assent on 15 November this year, gives the Secretary of State powers to implement proposals in the White Paper for which powers did not already exist.

  "Look After Your Heart"
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress of the "Look After Your Heart" campaign.

  Mrs. Currie
  The "Look After Your Heart" campaign, which aims to contribute to a substantial reduction in the high incidence of coronary heart disease in England, has been most successful during its first 18 months in supporting and encouraging widespread activity at national and local level. Industry and commerce have supported the campaign through joint promotions and a scheme of "healthy living" contracts, which almost 100 companies employing about 2·5 million people have signed. "Look After Your Heart" has also encouraged local activity, providing funding of £395,000 in 18 months for 160 projects. A "heartbeat award" scheme for restaurants and eating establishments which offer healthy food choices and no-smoking areas is also proving most successful.

  The campaign, run jointly by the Department and the Health Education Authority, has been continuously evaluated and results show that knowledge of the main risk factors for coronary heart disease has grown, particularly amongst target social class groups.

  We plan to develop the campaign with a major drive involving industry, local groups, primary health care activity and special promotions. A new publicity campaign involving television and other advertising will be starting at the end of December 1988.

  Air Ambulance Services
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will update his Department's circular to health authorities on ambulance service emergency conveyance of patients by air (HSC (I.S.) 196) dated September 1975.

  Mrs. Currie
  The advice contained within HSC (I.S.) 196 remains valid. However, we are reviewing, with the NHS, the policy on helicopters in the light of developing interest in this form of transport for patients with major trauma.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the progress of major hospital building schemes costing more than £1 million in the Yorkshire regional health authority area.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Yorkshire regional health authority's building programme continues to make good progress. Information held centrally shows there are currently 12 schemes, each costing over £1 million, under construction and 32 more at various stages of design and planning. The total value of the region's building programme is over £300 million.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospital building projects have been initiated since 1979; and what was the comparable figure for the 1974 to 1979 period.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information held centrally on health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, shows that 466 schemes have been initiated since 1979 compared to 148 in the period 1974 to 1979.

  Coronary Units
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is per capita spending on coronary units in hospitals(a) in England and (b) in the north west region.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that we cannot identify spending on coronary units as such centrally. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue these inquiries, I suggest that he discusses the matter with Mr. Bruce Martin QC, chairman of North Western regional health authority, who is responsible for overall management of hospital services within the region.

  Trauma Centre
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the first British trial of the trauma centre concept.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are considering the Royal College of Surgeons' report on the management of major injuries, which recommended the establishment of trauma centres. No decisions will be taken until that consideration has been completed.

  Ancillary Workers (Pay)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the pay of ancillary workers in the Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since the last time this matter was raised during questions on 1 November we have received one more letter from an hon. Member.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making with his review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making with his review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making with his review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 1 November at columns 816-18.

  Water
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the future implications for his Department's brief of the recently published Water Bill.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department will continue to carry out its present functions.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from interested groups concerning women and mental health.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received several representations from a variety of sources, including, most recently, the report of the Women's National Commission.
  556
  I am particularly concerned about the problems some women experience with tranquillisers. There are a number of initiatives to encourage more careful prescribing on benzodiazepines, handle the problems of withdrawal, promote alternatives to tranquillisers, and to provide alternative help for those dependent upon them.

  I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of the particular interest that I am taking in this topic.

  In-patients
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated as in-patients in 1978 and in the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  In National Health Service hospitals in England, there were 5,370,319 in-patients treated in 1979 and in 1987–88 there were 6,619,354. This represents an increase of 23 per cent.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) powered and (b) non-powered wheelchairs are currently on issue from his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority, to which the hon. Member should address his questions.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the circular setting out procedures for the donation of organs for transplantation.

  Mrs. Currie
  We issued health circular HC(88)63 yesterday. It provides guidance on procedures for organ donation. We believe this will increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The circular also asks health authorities to carry out an audit of deaths in intensive care units. The audit will reveal the total potential for organ donation and the reasons why donation sometimes does not take place.

  Prosthetists
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many prosthetists there are in England; and how many amputees in England there are per prosthetist;

  (2) what plans he has for increasing the training facilities for prosthetists: and how many he proposes should be trained each year.

  Mr. Mellor
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority, to which the hon. Member should address his questions.

  Health Authority Buildings (Closure)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any adopted criteria exist within(a) the central Nottinghamshire or (b) other health authority areas which give financial incentives to managers of services for (i) closure or (ii) temporary closure of health authority buildings.
  557
  Mrs. Currie
  No. Managers are required to provide, on behalf of their authority, health care for their local community. Closures are made for many reasons and may be essential to improve services.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether in-use health authority properties can be closed on a temporary basis after consultation documents have been issued and prior to the expiry date of such consultations.

  Mrs. Currie
  Yes. Under the Community Health Council Regulations 1985 a closure may be made without consultation if the district health authority is satisfied that this is in the interests of the Health Service.

  Central Nottinghamshire Health Authority
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give a breakdown of transfer moneys payable to Central Nottinghamshire health authority from other health authorities for the provision of services for the mentally ill residing in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority since June 1987;

  (2) if he will list sales of National Health Service property and land in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area since 1979;

  (3) if he will list all temporary closures of National Health Service premises in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area since 1979, showing which facilities so closed are currently open;

  (4) if he will list the occasions since 1979 when consultation documents have been issued in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area on properties in use by them, which have been closed on a temporary basis by the authority prior to the expiry date of consultation.

  Mrs. Currie
  The responsibility for the provision of local health services rests with the district health authority concerned, in this case Central Nottinghamshire health authority, which is best placed to determine the most effective and efficient way of delivering health care, taking account of patient demand and budgetary constraints.

  The hon. Member may, therefore, wish to contact the chairman of the Central Nottinghamshire health authority to obtain the information that he seeks. I understand that the district general manager has indicated that she would be happy to meet the hon. Member at any convenient time.

  Health Buildings
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans for changing the current guidelines contained within HSC (IS) 207 entitled, "Closure or Change: Use of Health Buildings"; and if consultations will take place before any new guidelines are issued.

  Mrs. Currie
  Yes. We plan to revise the guidelines in the near future. Before the new guidelines are issued we shall consult all interested parties.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service beds were lost in(a) Waltham Forest and (b) the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  From 1979 to 1988, the number of patients treated in Waltham Forest per available bed rose from 9·9558
  to 17·8 and in England from 14·9 to 22·3. The figures for the rest of the United Kingdom are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Average daily available beds and number of in-patients treated in Waltham Forest and in England are as follows:

  1979

  1987–88

  Difference

  Waltham Forest

  Average daily available beds

  3,311

  2,254

  -1,057

  In-patients treated

  32,753

  40,052

  +7,299

  England

  Average daily beds available

  361,670

  296,777

  -64,893

  In-patients treated

  5,400,120

  6,619,354

  +1,219,234

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to raise standards of primary health care and make services more responsive to the needs of the consumer.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 12 July 1988 to my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) at column 554.

  Medicine Commission
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the Medicine Commission's annual report for 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes will shortly be placed in the Libraries containing the 1987 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Veterinary Products Committee, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Committee on the Review of Medicines and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.

  The bound volumes also include the code of practice on declaration of interests in the pharmaceutical industry which is followed by members of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Committee on Review of Medicines and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials, and their sub-committees. The code provides that members should declare personal interests in the industry to the Department of Health. They should also declare them where relevant at meetings of the commission or committees when they should in addition declare any interests their academic departments may have in the products under discussion. The code provides that information about members' personal interests shall be published with the annual reports. This information is published for the first time with the 1987 reports. I have decided to extend the range of interests to be declared and published so as to cover the interests of members' departments as well as personal interests. These interests will be published with the 1988 annual reports. This code is not appropriate for the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, which is not involved in licensing matters. I

  559
  understand that a similar code has recently been adopted by the Veterinary Products Committee under which members must declare interests to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that the necessary follow-up action is in hand.

  I am glad to pay tribute to the valuable work done in the public interest by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies. Members follow the ethical standards set by the code of practice, and any involvements they may have in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry helps them to keep in touch with important aspects of drug development while avoiding conflicts of interest which might otherwise impair the objectivity of the scientific and clinical advice they give. I have full confidence in the personal integrity of the members concerned.

  Nursing Qualifications
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to give a greater role in the examination of nursing qualifications to the Royal College of Nursing.

  Mr. Mellor
  The statutory responsibility for establishing and improving the standard of nurse training and for approving educational institutions and courses rests with the United Kingdom Central Council and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. The Royal College of Nursing's institute of advanced nursing education is an important provider of post-registration education and training, whose work we fully support. I hope that the institute will continue to develop higher standards of clinical excellence within the profession through its activities.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Emission Standards: Lean Burn Engine
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether bearing in mind the undesirable side-effects of nitrous oxides from vehicle exhausts, they still believe that the development of lean burn engines can provide an adequate reduction compared with exhaust catalyst converters and when lean burn engines are likely to be commercially available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, lean burn technology alone is not adequate to meet our current environmental objectives in terms of a combination of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and the oxides of nitrogen. The emission standards we have adopted will mean that large cars will need full three-way catalyst systems. For medium and small cars the combined standard of 8 grammes per test for hydrocarbons and the oxides of nitrogen is only likely to be met by vehicles fitted with some form of catalysts. First generation lean burn engines without catalysts, meeting the current standards, are already offered by two UK based manufacturers.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he agree that we have already fallen behind many European countries in fitting catalysts? Does he further agree that, although under light load lean burn engines are quite effective and conform with the Luxembourg requirements, under heavy acceleration and at high speed they are almost as bad as existing cars?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not agree that we fall behind the European standards because those standards were set as a result of the Luxembourg package and will apply throughout the EC countries. As regards lean burn technology under certain driving conditions, I am not aware of the problem to which the noble Viscount refers. Lean burn technology has advantages in the ordinary course of events in that it cuts down on the contribution to the greenhouse effect by increasing fuel efficiency.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall a statement made on 1st November by his ministerial colleague in another place, Mr. Peter Bottomley, when he said:
"Anyone whose car can use unleaded fuel without adjustment, or after having been adjusted, and who finds that unleaded fuel is not available, will be able to use ordinary two-star or four-star petrol. He
818
will find that it will have no noticeably different effect on the engine … If a car can use unleaded fuel, it can also use leaded".—[Official Report, Commons 1/11/88; cols. 987–988.]
Does the Minister feel that that statement needs some clarification in view of the fact that other expert opinion, including that of my own car suppliers, holds that such is not the case and that it is not possible for cars that have been treated or adjusted for use with unleaded petrol to run on leaded petrol without inconvenience?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has jumped the gun somewhat. We shall be dealing with leaded petrol in the next Question. However, my information is that a car which is able to run on unleaded petrol can perfectly well use leaded petrol.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is important is the fact that the European standard now makes provision for smaller cars to have lean burn engines? It thus saves countless thousands of motorists the substantial extra cost of having to fit a three-way catalyst or buy cars with three-way catalysts on them when the additional advantage in terms of the emission of hydrocarbons would be negligible.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right, although we suspect that even the smaller cars will need the single oxidation catalyst—I believe that is what it is called—which is not nearly so complicated as the three-way catalytic converter.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will draw the attention of joggers in London to this point? In addition to the fact that other people smoking in the office may harm them, every hour that they jog in London and take into the depths of their lungs diesel fumes and the exhaust from vehicles does them irreparable damage. Indeed those fumes are a bigger killer than is passive smoking. Does he not think that they ought to be warned?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has, I think, warned joggers very effectively. We are of course committed through the measures that I have outlined in reply to this Question and through the use of unleaded petrol to improve the atmosphere.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that I own a Maestro car which I believe is unconvertible. Has my noble friend any good advice to give me as to what I ought to do within the means at my disposal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have not reached the Question which relates to lead in petrol. We seem to be dealing with the first two Questions of the noble Viscount together. However, my advice to my noble and learned friend would be to buy a new car that will run on unleaded petrol.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how soon he expects lean burn engines

819
to come on the market? I believe that Ford has already produced one and I gather that perhaps Rover will also do so. Can he give any information on that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the first generation of lean burn engines is already on the market and being fitted to cars. Both Ford and Rover are wholly committed to this technology. I understand that these engines run on a ratio of 18 to 1 as against a conventional engine which has a ratio of 15 to 1. The second generation of lean burn engines are expected to operate with ratios of 20 to 1 or greater.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I partly accept the Minister's reproof that my question dealt with the noble Viscount's second Question. However, his Question deals with new cars whereas mine, like that of the noble and learned Lord, was devoted to existing cars. I also possess a Maestro. I have been told by my main dealer that if I have it converted not with a catalytic converter but by tuning, it will not be possible for it to run on both leaded and unleaded petrol. As I am often in the North of Scotland, conversion may not be very wise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is not the information I have. My information is that if a car is capable of being converted to run on lead-free petrol—and I shall be dealing with that matter on the next Question—then no harm can come to it by using leaded petrol if one cannot find a supply of unleaded petrol.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, having pedalled around the streets of central London rain and shine for the past 25 years, day in and day out, can my noble friend advise me on exactly what these dangerous side-effects are supposed to be? Why have I not suffered from them already?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain that I can answer the second part of my noble friend's question. But there is no doubt that anything that we can do to improve the atmosphere, in particular in cities, must be good.

Unleaded Petrol
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many new cars can run on lead-free petrol and whether they will state which models are unable to do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are about 1,000 model variants of new vehicles on sale in the UK at present. Detailed information about what fuel they can use is available in the New Car Fuel Consumption booklet published by the Department of Transport. There is a copy in the Library. In the first nine months of 1988, only 18 per cent. of the new petrol engined vehicles sold were in the leaded-only category.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he not feel that it is very important to try to get as many people who have suitable cars to turn to lead-free petrol as soon as possible?
Is it not a fact that in 1990 new cars with engine capacities of over two litres will have to have three-way catalysts? It will be most unfortunate if there are insufficient petrol pumps. Will the Minister consider sending out promotional literature with new licences this year? Does he not also agree that many people who could and would convert their cars to lead-free petrol do not do so simply because they do not get around to it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount. I should like to see everyone making an effort to use unleaded petrol.
We shall be sending out a notice on this matter with tax reminders in February next year. It will therefore eventually reach all motorists. Two-thirds of all cars and light commercial vehicles could use unleaded petrol either with or without some modification. I urge noble Lords to look at a booklet which is in the Library to see whether their cars can take unleaded petrol either with or without a small adjustment and, if that is so, to start using unleaded petrol.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the position at present is totally unsatisfactory not only because there are too few garages offering unleaded petrol but also because in many cases people can buy leaded petrol at cut-price garages much more cheaply than they can buy unleaded petrol with 6p off? To give an example, I paid £1·68 per gallon for unleaded petrol, but I can go down the road to Savacentre in Reading and buy it for £1·59 per gallon. But it is four-star petrol at Savacentre and I therefore do not do so. However, many people who are perhaps in straitened circumstances would use leaded petrol because it is so much cheaper.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it should not have to be cheaper because there is the tax differential which allows unleaded petrol to be sold at around 6p a gallon cheaper than leaded petrol. Different garages sell petrol at different prices. I can only hope that all garages will be selling unleaded petrol fairly soon and the differential should then exist. In the UK, 3,000 petrol stations will be selling unleaded petrol by the end of this year. The number is increasing by about 50 or 60 a week. Obviously the more garages that sell unleaded petrol the better.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as it is desirable to set a good example, can the noble Lord say how many cars in the government pool—including ministerial cars—at present are able to take unleaded petrol? Can he also indicate the percentage of petrol stations in this country that provide unleaded petrol?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the policy is that all new cars bought for the government car service will be capable of running on unleaded petrol.

821
All cars that can be converted to run on unleaded petrol will have that done at their next service. There are obviously still some cars in the service which cannot run on unleaded petrol. As those come up for replacement they will he replaced with cars that can.
The number of garages that sell unleaded petrol is currently about 15 per cent. However, because unleaded petrol tends to be sold at larger garages, about one in four refuellings will take place at a petrol station where unleaded petrol is available.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is it correct that the lead in the ordinary petrol that most of us still have to use is being reduced gradually and that ordinary petrol now has very much less lead in it than was the case two years ago?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right, except that she used the words "most of us have to use". As I said earlier, about two-thirds of all cars do not have to use leaded petrol. The amount of lead in petrol has been dramatically reduced over the past few years. In 1981 the maximum amount of lead allowed in petrol was reduced from 0·4 to 0·15 grammes per litre with effect from 31st December 1985.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say what discussions are taking place with the oil companies about this monstrously dangerous continuing practice?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the oil companies are fully supportive of the move to unleaded petrol. We have had numerous discussions with them and, as I say, they are fully supportive.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether using lead-free petrol means that there is any fall off in petrol consumption figures for a model which can use it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe there is no difference in the fuel consumption. It is possible that cars which run on unleaded petrol use slightly more, but certainly not enough to make a difference in the costs.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, there will always be a number of old cars owned by enthusiasts which cannot be converted to run on lead-free petrol. Can the Minister give a reasonable undertaking that for those enthusiasts leaded petrol will be available more or less indefinitely?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that leaded petrol will continue to be available for a good many years because there are still cars being produced today which cannot run on unleaded petrol and they must have a life of some considerable length.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it true that the foam used by the fire brigades for fighting petrol fires will not put out fires caused by unleaded petrol as effectively as those caused by leaded petrol? If so, is anything being done about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that question. I saw a report in the press and I have not yet been able to find out whether there is any validity in it.

Family Credit
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for the take-up of family credit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, since the start of the new scheme over 450,000 claims have been received. At the end of November over 260,000 families were receiving family credit. In addition, about 47,000 claims were in hand but in 32,000 of these we were waiting for replies to inquiries from employees or claimants.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when do the Government expect to achieve their target of 60 per cent. of take-up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is a new scheme so it is inevitable that it will build up slowly. However, looking at the awards made between April, when it started, and November, I can tell the noble Lord that there has been an increase of 26,000 in claims. So it will build up slowly. I cannot give a date at which any target level may be achieved; however, the scheme is building up quite well.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the citizens' advice bureaux that part of the reason for the low take-up is what they call client confusion? Might not client confusion have something to do with the very difficult application form, FC1, which has to be filled in? The form is in 13 parts, in rather small print. I reached question No. 70 and then had to give up. Will the Minister put some FC1 forms in the Library to see how many noble Lords are able to get beyond question No. 70?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall be delighted to put form FC1 into the Library. I accept straight-away that it is long and that it looks very complicated. It is designed to be simple to complete. There are full explanations about what is required and most claimants can skip whole sections which do not apply to them. Nevertheless I accept the implied criticism of the noble Baroness. We are considering ways of shortening the form and simplifying it still further.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord has given indicate that a great many people are still waiting to have their claims processed. What liaison is there between the income support officers and the housing benefit officers? I know of a deaf and dumb man working in a sheltered workshop who has been waiting 22 weeks to have his family credit processed. In the meantime the housing benefit

823
officer has been deducting what he thinks will be the man's family credit from his housing benefit, so the man is being penalised doubly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am interested to hear the noble Countess's supplementary question. I should like further details of that case. I know that there were some problems in the early weeks of the new scheme, but average clearance times have now reduced to about 23 working days. I accept that that is still too high and that the target is 18 days. As staff become more experienced I am confident that we shall soon be hitting that target.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether anyone outside his department will be entrusted with the task of simplifying the form? If it is left to the department is it not likely that a defensive feeling about the need to make itself safe will prevent the production of a form which people can use and understand?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the new form that I mentioned is being widely consulted upon. I should not like to give my noble friend the name of any particular organisation which we are consulting. I assure him however that the form will be looked at by people outside the department before it is printed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that those who are entitled to family credit and do not get it suffer doubly through the fact that child benefit is not being uprated? Will the noble Lord agree that the best means of ensuring that all receive their dues is an index-linked universal benefit offset by the operation of the tax system on the remaining taxable income?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has made; namely, that if people are eligible for family credit the freeze in child benefit will not be compensated in the case of those who do not claim. That is why we have made it our policy to increase the rates of family credit very generously. For example, in a local job centre near my home an experienced hair stylist was advertised for at gross weekly pay of £78·80. For a family with two children aged between 11 and 15 the payment would be £39·63 in family credit if they applied today with an extra £6·83 after the uprating in April.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the figures the Minister has given could he not try to make an estimate of the achievement of the 60 per cent. take-up target? Is it not a fact that means tested benefits seldom achieve their targets? In this case is it not made much worse by the disgraceful decision to freeze child benefit? If we had a decent level of child benefit payment would this not be much better than the ill-conceived scheme of family credit?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think so. If one's objective it to target money to poorer families it is of no benefit to increase child benefit. We have uprated family credit by the Rossi index of 4·7
824
per cent., adding 45p, which would have been the increase in child benefit, and then adding an extra 50p to channel extra help to poorer families.

Traffic Direction Signs, Greater London
2.59 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve traffic direction signs in Greater London.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we commissioned a study by consultants in 1986 to make an inventory of all trunk road direction signs within the M25 and to review the present system of signing. The study found that a large number of signs gave inconsistent or incorrect information, and that the system as a whole is out of date. For example it does not take account of the completion of the M25. The consultants recommended a new system of area signposting. We hope to be able to consult formally with the local authorities and interested organisations on the proposals in the new year.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Is he aware that at present the need is acute, and that in the vast metropolis it is rare to find any coherent system of traffic signs at main intersections? Where they exist they are not always helpful. Is my noble friend aware of a sign in the Wandsworth-Raynes Park area on which the north-west arm indicates to Oxford and the south-east arm of the sign indicates to Folkestone? Neither is helpful to people looking for Westminister or Wimbledon. Is my noble friend further aware that it would be helpful to all drivers to have a coherent system of signs, at least for the trunk roads carrying traffic from the periphery to the centre of London? Can he say how soon his preparatory work may burgeon into action so that we see it on the gound?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the present system is totally unacceptable. Sixty-five per cent. of the 10,000 signs recorded were discovered to be unacceptable to varying degrees. If all goes well the new system could be installed in 1990.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the biggest faults in signing is having three names indicating the same direction but at the next sign, when there are only two names, one believes that one has gone the wrong way? I have often seen drivers with a map on the steering wheel and that strikes me as being a dangerous operation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the present system is unsatisfactory. The new system would work as follows: there would be a direction initially to one of 15 areas based on compass points—for example,—south-west London—and signposts within the area would carry the name of a strategic centre—for example, Kingston—and the new area destination. When the system is introduced it will solve the problems referred to by the noble Lord.
Lord RentonMy Lords, who is responsible for the introduction, and how is the cost to be borne?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the cost is estimated to be approximately £10 million at present prices. If that sounds a great deal of money I should point out that it would cost £5 million merely to put the present system right. I believe that it is good value therefore to spend the extra money on obtaining a new system. Eighty per cent. of the signs are on trunk roads and the cost would fall to the Government. The remaining 20 per cent. are on the non-trunk roads.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the Minister's encouraging reply. However, does he consider that many of the misleading and doubtful signs are not only an irritant but, in some cases, have definitely been the cause of nasty accidents?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is probably true Signs can also be the cause of congestion. It is hoped that the new signposting system will not route traffic to where it does not need to go.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said is bad enough, there are far too many signs in London which merely indicate "The North" or "The West" and that that is much less than helpful?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should have thought that if one wants go to to the North they are helpful.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the encouraging information which the Minister has given suggests that decisions have already been taken in respect of the type of scheme required; yet he referred to bodies being taken into consultation. Has a definite decision been taken on the form to be followed, or is there still to be consultation with the motoring organisations and the Road Haulage Association?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, we hope to go to consultation early in the new year on the principles of the scheme, as I have outlined.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, indicated, a great many of the road traffic accidents which occur in built-up areas are caused by motorists taking their eyes off the road in a desperate attempt to discover where on earth they are? Therefore, in addition to the problem with the Department of Transport signs, will Her Majesty's Government make it compulsory for local authorities to ensure that the names of all streets are clearly indicated and visible from the road at every intersection?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the question about street names is slightly different from that on the Order Paper. However, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the proposal made by the noble Lord.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it should cost £10 million to repaint a few signs?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have attempted to describe, it is much more than repainting a few signs.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the fact that the problem is not confined to Greater London? May I suggest that if ever he is invited to Redditch in Worcestershire he avoids the town, because I believe that many people become trapped there and try to find their way out after having found their way into the town centre?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the system works perhaps it can be extended around the country.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that all the questions point to the fact that what we need is a London strategic authority?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. The problems which I have outlined are not new and no doubt occurred when London was run by a different organisation. In strategic terms trunk roads are the predominant roads and there is a single authority for them; namely, the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I do not know whether noble Lords received a circular this morning describing a system sponsored by Plessey which appears to be most appropriate. The company erects beacons all over the the country. You get into your car and tune into the beacon, at which point it takes charge and directs you to the point where you have indicated you want to go. It may be on the other side of London. You are instructed to turn right or to turn left until you reach your destination. Can anything so perfect work?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a slightly different question from the one on the Order Paper. However, we shall be debating the subject on Thursday afternoon when we reach the Bill which deals with that system known as "auto guide". If the noble Lord, Lord Paget, or any other noble Lord would like to drive a car fitted with the device, I should be grateful if they would let me know.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Children Bill has

827
been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 13,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 14 to 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 36,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 37 to 49,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 50 to 53,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 54 to 56,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 57 to 61,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 62 to 79,

Schedules 8 to 11,

The Title.

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 1988
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That Private Business Standing Order No. 216 (Hybrid Instruments) be dispensed with in relation to any further proceedings on the order.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House might find it helpful if I were briefly to sketch in the background to the Motion. As the House knows, the original order designating the urban development area and setting up the Bristol Development Corporation was laid last May. It was declared hybrid and petitioned against by Bristol City Council. The petition was referred to a Select Committee of this House under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The Select Committee began its inquiry on 11th October and sat for nine days, considering its report on a further two days.
The committee reported on 7th December and recommended that the principle of an urban development area and an urban development corporation should be accepted for Bristol. The committee also recommended that four sites originally proposed for designation should be excluded from the development area. They are the land on each side of the Avon between Birchwood Lodge and Conham Ferry; the area of Totterdown between Wells Road and Bath Road; the land bordered by the Floating Harbour, Victoria Street and Temple Way; and the land to the north of Unity Street and Waterloo Road.
The committee was advised that the Secretary of State, in accepting the recommendations, could lay an amended order incorporating the changes proposed. Alternatively, the House could affirm the original order provided that the Secretary of State gave an undertaking to lay an amending order as soon as possible, which would exclude the four areas previously mentioned.
Today is not the time to debate the Select Committee's report, but I should however say now that the Government accept the committee's recommendations in full and we aim to put them into effect as quickly as possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment therefore laid an order on 12th December, the effect of which, if approved by the House, will be to amend the original order so as to remove the four sites previously mentioned from the proposed urban development area in line with the Select Committee's recommendation.
The amending order has been declared hybrid by the Chairman of Committees. In the normal course of events a 14-day period for petitioning and the other procedures relating to hybrid instruments would now ensue, but in view of the fact that the intention of the amending order is to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, made after an exhaustive inquiry into the matter, we are submittting that it would be inappropriate for Standing Order No. 216 to apply to this order. The committee itself drew attention to the probability that any petitions laid against the amending order would be unlikely to be referred to a Select Committee on the grounds that a sufficient inquiry had already been held. If the House agrees, the effect of suspending Standing Order No. 216 in this case will be to allow the amending order to be debated as soon as it has been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Government's intention is to arrange for the original designation order and the amending order to be debated together at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move.
Moved, That Private Business Standing Order No. 216 (Hybrid Instruments) be dispensed with in relation to any further proceedings on the order.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Energy Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This measure is largely technical and contains a number of unrelated proposals concerning the nuclear industry. I understand that in the US it would be known as a Christmas tree Bill, which seems very appropriate.
The first proposal contained in Clause 1 aims to increase to £2,000 million the financial limit imposed on British Nuclear Fuels plc by the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Acts of 1977 and 1981. The limit, currently £1,500 million, has been progressively increased from the limit of £300 million set in 1977. The limit is defined in the 1977 Act and comprises: payments for company shares; the principal and interest outstanding on loans from government funds; and the guarantees given by the Government in support of BNFL's borrowing from non-government sources.
BNFL is a public limited company whose principal shareholder is the Secretary of State for Energy. It

829
provides a complete range of nuclear fuel cycle services to utilities both in this country and abroad. It also generates electricity. The company's turnover last year was some £839 million with a pre-tax profit of £100 million and a dividend payment to the Government of £36 million.
BNFL is supporting a massive investment programme of more than £5 billion until the turn of the century, mainly in support of its waste management and reprocessing operations at Sellafield. More than 50 per cent. of this projected capital expenditure, some £2.8 billion, will be spent over the next four years, of which about 45 per cent. is forecast to be met from internal sources, almost 30 per cent. from overseas customers and just over 25 per cent. from borrowings.
Unlike a nationalised industry, BNFL, as a Companies Act company, borrows from commercial sources backed by a government guarantee. Guarantees are only made for specific loans, which are scrutinised individually and notified to Parliament. BNFL's current expectation is that they will reach the existing limit of £1,500 million during 1990 and it is therefore prudent to seek the increase which Clause 1 provides.
Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover the costs of nuclear safety research which it sponsors, as appropriate, from nuclear site licensees and applicants for licences. Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy recently announced in another place that much of the safety research currently sponsored by his department would be transferred to the Health and Safety Commission as from 1st April 1990. The programmes will be managed on the commission's behalf by the Health and Safety Executive.
The commission's role in this respect will be similar to that of the department at present. It will be charged with ensuring that adequate safety research programmes continue to be carried out, that the contribution research can make to higher standards of nuclear safety is fully exploited and that the results are disseminated. This will involve close collaboration with the nuclear industry to ensure that the commission is able to take into account the safety-related work the industry is doing for its own purposes in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. The commission will need to ensure that the totality of research is adequate and that an R&D capacity independent of the industry continues to be available.
The safety research responsibility to be transferred relates to established reactor designs which are either in commercial operation now or are under construction for commercial use. In addition some work on general nuclear safety—relevant to commercial nuclear power but not specific to any single type of reactor—is being transferred. It is appropriate that the cost of this safety research should be borne by the plant operators, whose customers will ultimately benefit from it. The cost of the research being transferred is some £20 million per year. However, the amount which the HSE will actually take over is likely in future to be less than this, depending on how much the plant operators
830
wish to sponsor themselves and which programmes the commission judges should be pursued in the common interest.
Discussions involving the HSE, the Department of Energy, the UK Atomic Energy Authority and the industries are already taking place aimed at identifying the programmes which will be the subject of HSE sponsorship. Whatever the results of these discussions, we anticipate that the net effect will be to reduce annual government expenditure by the £20 million which I have referred to.
This clause will also enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover costs incurred in connection with its licensing function from nuclear site licensees and applicants for licences. Costs attributable to licensees are already recoverable under existing provisions, which are now being re-stated.
However, costs relating to a licence application cannot at present be recovered until a licence is granted, and cannot be recovered at all if the application is refused or withdrawn. The new provisions will enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover its costs before, and whether or not, a licence is granted.
Clauses 3 and 4 make minor technical amendments to the rules on insurance cover for meeting third party compensation claims in the event of nuclear incidents.
The purpose of Clause 3 is quite straightforward. Section 18 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 sets out the method for determining the maximum contribution which the Government might make towards meeting the cost of compensation claims. This takes into account nuclear installation operators' own insurance cover and any contributions from other governments who are our partners in an international convention in this area.
At present the UKAEA, because it is a public body, is not required to cover its liabilities by insurance in the same way as, for example, the CEGB or BNFL. However, following the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986 the authority's operations are now being undertaken on a more commercial trading fund basis, and occasions may arise when commercial insurance is considered a more attractive option than the self insurance which is normal for government bodies.
This clause will remove any doubt which may exist over whether funds available from any such insurance may be taken into account when computing the maximum level of government contribution. It also removes any possible doubt as to whether there is a liability upon which insurers should pay.
Clause 4 is designed to overcome an unintended defect in the drafting of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 which operational experience has identified. The essence of the clause is that it will avoid the need for new insurance cover to be taken out when a new nuclear site licence has to be issued for purely technical reasons.
At present the issue of a new licence to existing licensees is one of the circumstances in which current insurance cover has to be terminated. New cover has to be taken out in respect of future incidents at the

831
site, and at the same time further insurance has to be provided for a period of 10 years to cover any claims which might arise out of the old, and now terminated, insurance period. This duplication of insurance cover is unnecessary, and the requirement for it was never intended.
Clause 5 of the Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the International Convention on Assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency, widely known as the mutual assistance convention.
This convention is one of the two negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency in July 1986 in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. The other convention concerns early notification and we believe that together they offer important reassurance that there is international consensus on the steps that would need to be taken in the event of an accident of radiological safety significance. No legislative changes are needed before ratification of the early notification convention but it is our intention to ratify both simultaneously. In the meantime, we have agreed to act as though bound by the conventions.
The likelihood of the United Kingdom needing to take advantage of the provisions of the mutual assistance convention is, we hope and believe, very remote, but before we can ratify we have to satisfy ourselves that our domestic law would permit us to comply with the terms of the convention. So Clause 5 makes the two changes needed in this respect.
It makes the necessary financial provision to enable payments to be made in the event of the United Kingdom responding to a request for assistance and to receive payments in the event that we decide to seek reimbursement, a circumstance which is provided for in the convention. It also gives the necessary cover for affording certain privileges and immunities to persons from a state which is providing assistance. The relevant provisions of the convention are set out in the schedule to the Bill.
The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to sign the conventions which have been in force for some time. We regard it as an important token of our belief that we should ratify at the earliest opportunity. The provisions of Clause 5 will enable us to take this step. I commend the Bill to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Bill and taking us through its provisions. When the Minister said, as she did, that the Bill is largely technical, the Opposition's ears started pricking. We wonder whether a Bill described as largely technical in fact has some matters of substance in it. Indeed, the Bill does contain some matters of substance.
The Bill has the rather portentous short title of the Atomic Energy Bill, which would lead us to believe that it concerns the whole atomic energy debate. It was not mentioned in the gracious Speech. It was
832
announced, so far as concerns Clause 2, in a Written Answer in another place that it would be introduced when legislative time permits. It arises in your Lordships' House at a time when the Select Committee on Energy in another place is inquiring into the capital requirements of BNFL. So far as I am aware—and that may not be very far—it was not advised in the last Session that this Bill was to be produced.
Leaving that aside, this Bill is generally to be welcomed, though in parts we give it a guarded welcome. The Bill raises a number of questions and it contains some oddities. I start by following the noble Baroness and beginning with Clause 1, which is the essential piece of the atomic energy part of the Bill. We have these questions.
Why is it that BNFL needs these further assurances in the way of guarantees? We assume that the money that BNFL wishes to raise is for the construction of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant. If that is the case—and we know that it is 16 per cent. above the original budget figure—why did BNFL say (I quote from the evidence to the Commons Select Committee on the Environment in 1985):
"a full order-book for the first ten years of THORP"—
that is the acronym for the plant I have mentioned—
"…and that pays for that plant"?
Has something gone wrong with the order book? Has something gone wrong with the costs of the plant?
The second question relates to the whole matter of the capital programme of BNFL, which the noble Baroness rightly said will amount to more than £5 billion by the end of the century. What will be the effect of the recent increase in interest rates and the recent increase in inflation on that capital programme? Are we to see more atomic energy Bills requiring greater facilities for BNFL?
The third question relates to the cost of shutting down nuclear installations which BNFL will have to meet in the course of time. Indeed, the chairman of BNFL, Mr. Harding, gave evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee that that would be a problem. Certain press reports—particularly one in the Guardian of 1st December—reported Members of Parliament as being concerned that BNFL cannot afford the huge costs of shutting down its nuclear installations. Is part of Clause 1 designed to help that process or is the cost of that process to be passed on to the electricity supply industry, which is BNFL's main customer?
If that is the case, how will the privatisation of electricity affect that programme? After all, BNFL is a government organisation, as the Minister pointed out. It is wholly owned by the Secretary of State. Is it not odd that at this point we should be considering a Bill containing a clause that increases the borrowing powers of BNFL under government guarantee, while at the same time another place has just given a Second Reading to the Electricity Bill, which is designed to privatise the electricity supply industry? Are we not in danger of accepting a Bill which subsidises the supply of fuel to the electricity supply industry while privatising the electricity supply industry itself?

833
We welcome Clause 2 unreservedly. I hasten to assure the noble Baroness that it has our complete support. Indeed, we go further. We have always argued that the safety functions of the Department of Energy should be transferred lock, stock and barrel to the Health and Safety Executive. We believe that in the case of disastrous accidents like Piper Alpha. It should be a continuing process. We are glad to have assurances from the noble Baroness that the Government have that programme in mind.
Nevertheless, I have to ask in regard to Clause 2 whether the commission itself will be free to institute its own inquiries and will not have to rely on BNFL or someone else asking it to come in. Will it be free to take the initiative?
There are no major questions on Clauses 3, 4 and 5, but there are one or two oddities. Clause 3 deals with insurance. The noble Baroness rightly said that Clause 3 is designed to take account of commercial insurance that the nuclear installations in question can take out. However, I draw her attention to the expression in Clause 3 which specifies that there can be claims for compensation against those responsible for problems as a result of a nuclear accident,
"with any amounts payable under a contract of insurance".
That is different from the wording of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which specifies "any necessary amounts". Is that a deliberate slip, or is it part of new government policy that the Treasury or the department has no control over what insurance premiums are paid by various organisations for insurance cover?
Clause 4 contains a very odd expression. I quote the whole of subsection (2). It contains only one sentence, but it is interesting. It says:
"The amendments made by this section shall be deemed always to have had effect".
In other words, since the time of the Creation or the Book of Genesis, these amendments are,
"deemed always to have had effect".
I find that a very odd concept because although I am not a constitutional lawyer I was brought up to believe that retroactive legislation in this form was not something of which your Lordships approved. Nevertheless I am sure that the noble Baroness has a proper explanation for that.
I come to the question of the convention. We are glad that the Government signed it in the first place. As the noble Baroness has outlined, it was in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident, which was very serious and merited international co-operation. There are some oddities. In its wording the convention leaves the state in which the accident occurs responsible for the decision as to whether the accident may have transboundary effects or not. In other words, the convention leaves it to us to decide whether a Sellafield or Hunterston B incident has transboundary effects or not. There is no idea that there should be a body that will say, "Wait a minute, Chernobyl blew up and that is going to affect the Welsh sheep farmers".
The loophole is even wider when we realise that there are no standards in the convention about what constitutes transboundary effects. Every state is
834
entitled to decide what is meant by it. The problem with the convention is that, unlike the 1985 guidelines laid down by the IAEA for information, it does not provide for information to the public. Nobody may know that there is a nuclear incident that has happened because there is no obligation in the convention to tell the public.
There are problems with the convention. I believe that we can, as the Parliament of the United Kingdom, go further than the convention. There is no restriction upon us and we are not bound to limit ourselves to it. To say the least, I am surprised that part of the convention is reproduced as a schedule to the Bill which we have in front of us. My noble friends and I have argued on a number of occasions as regards the Financial Services and Consumer Protection Bills, and so on—I can list them for the noble Baroness if she wishes—that directives and conventions should be published as schedules to the Act. We were told from the government Front Bench time and again that conventions should not be part of United Kingdom legislation because conventions can change.
The most recent example that I can cite is the Copyright Bill. We argued that the Berne Convention on Copyright should be a schedule to the Act. This was refuted by the government Minister, who said that it could change. Why cannot this convention change? If this convention changes as a result of some other nuclear accident, which we would all deplore, does that mean that we shall have to have new primary legislation in order to amend the schedule to this Act?
These are the questions and certain oddities in the Bill. It does not mean to say that we are going to oppose what the noble Baroness has rightly described as a "Christmas Bill". It is the time of Christmas and we are certainly not going to make the life of the noble Baroness more difficult than it will be next summer when the electricity Bill comes to your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, we remain unconvinced that the Government can answer all the questions that I have asked. Unless they can do so, we reserve the right to apply careful scrutiny to the Bill, as is our duty in opposition, when it comes to your Lordships in Committee.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in preparing for my contribution to the debate on this Bill I looked up the debate on the earlier Bill to which the noble Baroness referred; namely, the Bill of 1977. I found that on that occasion, in place of the noble Baroness herself, the participant was the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and that the role of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The role that I am taking now—here at least there is a degree of consistency—was taken by my noble friend Lord Avebury.
What was interesting was that the comments made by the Government and other parties on that occasion were very similar to the comments now being made. I should like to follow that theme and ask a couple of questions. The first point is that, according to what the noble Baroness told us—which we know from the accounts of BNFL—it is a very

835
prosperous company. We have been told today that it has a turnover of £839 million. It makes a profit of £100 million, which is a very good return on that turnover, and it pays a dividend equivalent to £36 million.
It seems that there is some anomaly in the Government's treatment of the whole nuclear industry. Why is this organisation being left as a company which is supported by government guarantee? That obviously means that whenever it wants to borrow money it can do so cheaper than anyone else. On the other hand, the nuclear industry as such, and the generating part of it, is being privatised at the present time. The matter is being debated this very day in another place. That seems to be an anomaly. Perhaps we may have some explanation.
I am here following what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had to say. I believe we are entitled to some explanation as to why the totality of the nuclear industry is being run in these different parts. If the Government really want to privatise electricity generation and the nuclear industry, why is not the whole lot being privatised? Why is this part of it which is evidently so profitable being kept under public ownership whereas the rest is being privatised and its costs or benefits being borne by the consumer? That is my first question.
My second question is a more technical one. I was interested to note that my noble friend Lord Avebury, on the occasion of the 1977 debate, raised the question of the progress being made with the process of vitrifying high level radioactive wastes. These wastes can be held either in liquid or solid form, in which vitrification, which reduces the area required by this high level waste, is the process. This process is widely used in France. The answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on that occasion was,
"This project is now at such a stage that its successful conclusion can be confidently predicted".—[Official Report, 24/3/77; col. 730.]
I ask the noble Baroness where we stand on the question of vitrification. This is regarded generally as being a safer and more convenient process for storing nuclear waste. I should like to know whether, after all these years, we have now solved the problem and are adopting that
process.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra, for their, albeit in some respects, guarded welcome to this small Bill. I believe it is a "Christmas tree Bill" and not just, as in American terminology, a "Christmas Bill". I shall endeavour to answer as fully as possible the barrage of questions that were raised, while understanding the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he said that rights are reserved to go into these matters further at the Committee stage. Of course that is correct.
On the first question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the Select Committee on Energy is considering BNFL's report and accounts but not its capital requirements. The Select Committee on Energy routinely looks at the report and accounts of
836
all publicly owned energy bodies. The investment plans are outlined in detail in the annual corporate plan which has to be approved by both the Department of Energy and the Treasury.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness and I promise not to do it too often. If the Select Committee of another place is considering the report and accounts, and if the corporate plan is within the report and accounts and is published, is not the committee also considering the corporate plan which includes the capital investment programme for the company?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in so far as the corporate plan comes into the report and accounts, that is certainly so. However, the primary purpose of the committee's investigation is to look at the report and accounts, not at the capital requirements.
The main reason for the increase is to finance the low active effluent discharge plant. This will involve expenditure of the order of £500 million up to 1991—92. Expenditure of this scale was not envisaged when the previous legislation was introduced in 1981. THORP is progressing well. The fuel handling and storage facility is now operational and received its first fuel this summer. BNFL announced earlier in the year that THORP costs had increased by 16 per cent. However, it announced at the same time that the anticipated throughput of the plant had also increased by 16 per cent. I can confirm that BNFL most definitely has firm contracts for the first 10 years of THORP. Two-thirds of these are with overseas customers and they will be a valuable export earner for the United Kingdom. THORP is expected to begin commercial reprocessing in late 1992. The lifetime of the plant will be governed by a combination of economic, commercial and operational factors. But experience of other reprocessing plants suggests that THORP can be expected to operate well into the second decade of the 21st century. That is, on the whole, good news.
As to the effects of electricity privatisation on BNFL, the Government's commitment to nuclear power should ensure a healthy future for the company. Under the privatisation proposals, National Power, one of the two main generation companies, will be free to test the market for nuclear fuel services. But for Magnox and much of the AGR work, there is no alternative to BNFL. I am confident that where alternatives exist BNFL will quote a competitive price. Its valuable overseas reprocessing contracts already demonstrate its ability to compete successfully for private sector contracts. I believe therefore that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are unfounded.
In this context perhaps I may refer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning the vitrification plant at Sellafield. I have had the opportunity to visit the plant and I can inform the noble Lord that it is well on line. It is expected to be ready to come on stream in accordance with the original plan. I cannot give the noble Lord the exact date but it is certainly going ahead according to plan and indeed to some extent has benefited from the French experience.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to what the noble Baroness said earlier. In the case of the privatisation programme, can she explain the apparent anomaly of keeping a thoroughly profitable company like BNFL in public ownership and the other plans of the Government for the rest of the electricity industry?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, crystal ball gazing is perhaps not appropriate in this context. However, in taking a major step such as the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, it is important that we should concentrate all our efforts. For the time being there are certainly no plans to look at any changes in regard to the ownership and operation of BNFL, which we believe is working efficiently and satisfactorily under the present arrangements.
I was asked whether the Health and Safety Commission would be free to take initiatives in regard to Clause 2. The Health and Safety Commission will determine its programme of nuclear safety research after consultation with the nuclear industry and such other sources of advice as it deems appropriate. The decision will ultimately be that of the Health and Safety Commission in accordance with objectives to be agreed between the Secretary of State and the commission.
I was asked about the appropriateness of commercial insurance in regard to Clause 3. Prior to 1986 the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was primarily vote funded and so commercial insurance was then inappropriate. Commercial insurance could have attractions in the new commercial environment. This clause is intended to facilitate these arrangements if they are thought desirable. There is no intention to press the Atomic Energy Authority to insure commercially. We wish merely to ensure that arrangements will allow it to do so if it wishes.
Clause 5 relates to international conventions. As I have indicated, the Convention on Assistance is one of a pair. The early notification convention provided some guidance on those areas in which an accident of radiological safety significance might occur. As to information to the public, under the terms of the early notification convention member states will have provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency details of incidents. The agency will disseminate this information very widely. That covers the publication point. In addition in certain instances bilateral early notification agreements already exist. There is no hard and fast rule on inclusion of the whole or part of a convention but we have attempted to cover this area in the provisions which are necessary in order to give effect to the convention arrangements in our domestic law.
I was asked why the convention should be attached in the schedule to the Bill. I should like to make it clear that not all of the convention is attached in this way but only those provisions relevant to the privileges and immunities to which I referred.
I hope that I have covered most of the questions. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Broadcasting in the 1990s
3.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality (Cmnd. 517).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government published the White Paper on broadcasting on 7th November. Today gives us an opportunity to discuss the White Paper and for the Government to hear your Lordships' views before embarking on legislation. I have no doubt that your Lordships would wish me to explain the Government's proposals, which I shall do, but I regard the debate today as being an opportunity for the Government to hear Parliament's first reactions on the White Paper. It will be considered by another place in the New Year.
The points which your Lordships make today will be carefully considered when we come to framing the broadcasting legislation. We seek the views of Parliament and of other interested bodies. The consultation period on the White Paper runs until the end of February.
The philosophy which has lain behind all the Government's considerations of what is a very wide and highly technical subject is that the viewer and the listener are the ones who matter. In short, it is that people should have a wider choice and a greater say over what they watch and what they listen to. There are other matters of great importance, but they are secondary to that overriding philosophy.
Whether we like it or not, broadcasting is changing fast; that is, the ability, the means of transmission and the methods of funding. Indeed, almost all technologies of broadcasting are undergoing change. Dozens of new television channels, and perhaps hundreds of new radio stations, may become available during the 1990s. Satellite, cable and microwave technologies, which after all only a short while ago seemed to most of us to be in the realms of fantasy, are now part of the facts of broadcasting life. The concept of funding television by subscription is new and is now set to develop.
The Government feel that the time is therefore right—and the conditions are ripe—for an overhaul of the way in which our television and radio are regulated. What the Government are seeking to do is to acknowledge that conditions have changed; that new technologies are here and, as a result, that new possibilities have come about; and then to say, "Let us now create a framework in which radio and television can operate to the best of their abilities, and for the benefit of the public, with the facilities which are at their disposal".
Some of those facilities will flourish. Some will die. Some may not even start. It is not the Government's job—nor is it our intention—to dictate which should flourish and which should die. It is not the Government's job to try to pick the winners. The Government's duty, as we see it, is to create the framework within which enterprise, opportunity and consumer demand will determine what is available.
But research and change are constantly throwing up new ideas and new opportunities. The scene is not static. It is perpetually moving. This was shown by the launch of the Astra satellite only last weekend. And the IBA's satellite contractor, British Satellite Broadcasting (BS B), will launch its service next year.
The framework must, therefore, be flexible enough to accommodate rapid change. And the White Paper proposes such a framework. It incorporates carefully designed safeguards for quality and standards; it seeks to enable broadcasters, both existing and prospective broadcasters, to make the best use of the opportunities which are created by new technology and it aims to encourage a creative and competitive broadcasting industry.
It might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to say a little about some of the main proposals. Perhaps I may start with ITV. The present ITV network will become known as Channel 3, and it will be regionally based. It will be regulated by the Independent Television Commission—the ITC—which will replace both the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the Cable Authority. And it will operate with a lighter touch. By that I do not mean that it will not have effective sanctions; but it will not have the responsibility which the IBA has had for the detailed approval of scheduling or for the prior clearance of particular programmes. With the many more channels which will be available, that degree of bureaucratic intervention simply would not be sensible.
On 2nd December my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that Mr. George Russell, who is at present the chairman of Independent Television News and deputy chairman of Channel 4, will succeed the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, as chairman of the IBA. Mr. Russell will head the IBA during the transition period when the Independent Television Commission is being set up. If Parliament approves the proposals for the ITC he will in due course become its chairman.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very considerable and constructive work which has been done by the Independent Broadcasting Authority in overseeing the regulatory framework which Parliament determined. It has been a mammoth task which the IBA has carried out with care and great sensitivity and for which it has earned the considerable respect which it now enjoys. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for his remarkable contribution to the television and broadcasting industry since he became chairman of the IBA in 1981. He has stood on the prow of this particular ship with charm—and a certain amount of modest defiance —and guided it with skill and, if I may say so, with distinction, whatever the conditions of the waters through which he sailed.
The present extended ITV contracts expire at the end of 1992. By that time the Independent Television Commission will have allocated new regional licences to Channel 3 operators. The ITC will decide the geographical boundaries for those licences. That is something in which the Government should not get
840
involved. The ITC will also award a separate night-time licence, or licences, and it will decide on possible additional licences at other times of the day—for instance, at breakfast time.
We propose that the licences should be allocated by a two-stage procedure. This will be more specific, and therefore we think fairer to applicants, than is the present one. It will also secure a proper return to the taxpayer for the use of a scarce public resource.
The first stage is that applicants will have to pass certain quality tests. The second stage is that those who are successful in the quality tests will offer financial tenders for the licence. The White Paper proposes that the ITC should be required to accept the highest tender.
The first stage tests—the quality tests—will include consumer protection requirements; namely, matters such as taste, decency, accuracy and balance. These will also apply to all the other independent sector television and radio services. But the quality tests go much further. For example: each regional Channel 3 station will be required to show programmes which have been produced in its own region. This will for the first time be a statutory requirement. The service which every Channel 3 licensee offers must appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. Each licensee must show high quality news and current affairs. They will have to put on the news, and possibly also current affairs programmes, during the main viewing periods. At least 25 per cent. of original programming must come from independent producers. And a proper proportion of programme material must be of European Community origin. When those factors are all taken together, the quality tests should help the main objective of enlarging genuine viewer choice. They will also ensure a reasonable balance between national interests and regional requirements.
But there will also be a stage three. Once the licensee has obtained his licence, the quality tests will be enforced by the ITC throughout the whole of the licence period. If needs be, the ITC will be able to remove the licensee. We are considering whether the ITC should also be able to impose financial penalties.
There must be clear rules in order to prevent unhealthy concentrations of ownership. The White Paper puts forward various principles for controlling ownership. The full set of rules will apply, not just to Channel 3, but to all independent television and radio, and also to cross-media ownership. For example, the ITC will take account of newspaper ownership, and satellite television ownership, when it comes to apply the ownership rules. We would welcome comments from your Lordships, and indeed from others, on the ways in which these rules should be properly formulated.
Much the same range of regulatory arrangements on programming and structure will apply to the proposed new channel, Channel 5. The main difference is that, since it will be a national channel, the regional programming requirement will not apply to Channel 5. The Government envisage that the ITC will divide up the time on Channel 5 with at least two licences for different times of day. If a sixth channel proves possible, it will be subject to a similar regime.
The Independent Television Commission will operate a more flexible regulation of advertising and sponsorship than is possible under the Broadcasting Act 1981. Proper safeguards will, though, have to be preserved. Licensees will be free to finance themselves by subscription as well as by sponsorship or by advertising.
I have drawn attention to the quality tests which will apply to Channel 3 and Channel 5. The special remit of Channel 4 is a further, and a crucial, guarantee in our view of quality programming in the independent sector. Channel 4 has been a success story which we want to see continue. We propose that its distinctive programming remit should be maintained and, in some respects, strengthened, and that this should be done in a statutory form.
Among other things, Channel 4 should be required to cater for tastes and interests which are not served by other parts of the independent television sector; to encourage innovation; to experiment in the programming which it commissions; and to devote a suitable proportion of its air time to education programming. It will also be expected to provide high quality news and current affairs programmes. The Welsh fourth channel, which has in the same way fulfilled expectations, will continue to provide a valuable service to viewers in Wales.
This does not mean that Channel 4's structural arrangements are immutable. It now seems very likely that under the present system the revenue from Channel 4's air time could enable it to fund its own service. We believe therefore that Channel 4 should now become responsible for selling its own air time.
We think that Channel 4's special role will best he fulfilled by an independent organisation, one which will be subject to ITC oversight, but one which does not have direct financial or structural links to Channel 3. The White Paper puts forward several different suggestions which might meet those objectives. The models include a Channel 4 service, which is provided by an ITC licensee, like Channel 3, with a programming remit which would be rigorously enforced by the conditions of its licence; or Channel 4 could become a non-profit-making subsidiary of the ITC; or Channel 4 could be linked to Channel 5, enabling them together to present a strong joint challenge to the established channels.
That part of the White Paper which deals with Channel 4's future financing is what one might call a "green passage". The Government would particularly welcome views on the future constitution of Channel 4. But all that merely goes to underline the Government's view that it is essential to uphold the Channel 4 remit.
We are also concerned to see that quality should continue to be a vital characteristic of the BBC. Its licence fee is linked to the retail prices index—at least until 1991. But the White Paper envisages that after 1991 there should be an increasing shift from financing by licence to financing by subscription.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has warned that the licence fee cannot be regarded as immortal, at a time when television channels are set to proliferate. It clearly makes sense to take account of the increasing scope for the BBC to raise revenue
842
through subscription and sponsorship; but the White Paper does not set a date for the replacement of the licence fee. We need to have more experience of how subscription television will operate before coming to any firm conclusions.
The BBC has already started a subscription service for one set of its night hours. The White Paper envisages that it will build on that. The other set of night hours will be assigned to the Independent Television Commission to allocate in much the same way as it does for Channel 3 licences. That will create further opportunities for new entrants into the world of broadcasting.
The White Paper emphasises the BBC's special role. The BBC should continue to provide high quality programmes across the full range of public tastes and interests. It should offer education, information and cultural material as well as entertainment. The BBC has welcomed that emphasis. In the words of the Home Affairs Committee,
"the BBC is and will remain. for the foreseeable future, the cornerstone of British broadcasting".
In the face of the far-reaching changes which are in prospect, it is essential that there are proper and adequate safeguards to protect viewers and their families from offensive material. That is being tackled in several ways. The Broadcasting Standards Council will be put on to a statutory footing; the broadcasters' exemption from the obscenity legislation will be removed at the earliest opportunity; and all ITC licensees will be subject to the consumer protection requirements which are listed in the White Paper. Those include requirements that news should be impartial and accurate and that programmes and advertisements should not include anything which offends against taste and decency.
We are within sight of an effective Council of Europe convention on trans-frontier broadcasting standards. As a further deterrent, the White Paper proposes that it should be made an offence to advertise from the United Kingdom on a foreign satellite service which has been identified as unacceptable. So all those measures, taken together, ought to protect the viewer from the dissemination of offensive material.
There has been some criticism that radio merits only two passages in a 45-page White Paper; but radio had its own Green Paper, which was published in February 1987, and the Government's plans for a new, expanded radio regime were announced on 19th January this year.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 2nd November that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is to make a welcome but necessarily limited start with community radio before the new legislation. But the present framework is, frankly, not ideal for community radio. We propose, therefore, that radio operators should have much greater freedom to make their own programming decisions and transmission arrangements.
There will be scope, in due course, for three national commercial stations and perhaps several hundred local stations, including community stations; but that will not be a recipe for a 24-hour

843
thump, thump, thump of non-stop pop. The successful applicants will be those which have the best plans for adding to listener choice.
I readily accept that the White Paper proposals are a fair upheaval. Although we are all always in favour of change, none of us likes it when it happens to us. So I can understand some of the apprehension which has been expressed. I should just like to make this clear. The Government are not just seeking change for change's sake; nor are we saying "Let's go and sort out the television and broadcasting industries." The fact is that the technologies, the systems and the methods of communication have all outstripped our present statutory framework. Times have changed, and are continuing to change. Whether we like it or not, there arc now facilities here which were not here some years ago. We are not at the end of that road either. Time will produce more new ideas and more new opportunities.
Our purpose is not to ensure that those ideas succeed. That is not government's job. It is Parliament's job to provide a framework within which those ventures can operate and within which they may be used and within which they may succeed—for the public benefit and enjoyment. We must, as it were, readjust our stall in the light of the new goods which are now in the market place.
I am conscious that there are important areas such as the proposals for local TV franchises and for giving the private sector a greater role in transmission in respect of which there is not time for me to go into detail now. From the Government's view the great value of this debate is that it provides an opportunity for your Lordships to express opinions on the proposals which we have put forward.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will wish to reflect carefully on the comments your Lordships make, especially since he and I are conscious of the apparently bottomless pit of experience and expertise on broadcasting matters which seem to reside within your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships that careful account will be taken of the views expressed today when the Government come to frame their legislation. On this basis I commend the White Paper to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality (Cmnd. 517)—(Earl Ferrers).
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister always has the wonderful knack of being able to make anything which some of us may be against or do not like sound extremely attractive. Once again he has done that. I think we are all pleased to hear—I am sure he meant it sincerely—that the views of Members of this House are sought and will be listened to and read. I was also delighted that he said that the viewer and listener—the consumers—are the most important part, the most important people in the whole of the White Paper and the proposed action that the Government intend to take. I think we are all bearing that in mind—certainly I am as a consumer of
844
television and radio—when we discuss the White Paper.
I believe that a starting point for our debate is the all-party Home Affairs Committee report on The Future of Broadcasting of June 1988. Paragraph 18 of that report is acknowledged in the White Paper. It states:
"From our international discussions we have come to appreciate that British television is seen to be among the best, if not the best in the world".
The Minister is right when he says that new technologies make change inevitable. Many of the White Paper's stated objectives can be welcomed. The White Paper is subtitled "Competition, Choice and Quality", though I think "Quality, Choice and Competition" would be rather more reassuring to many of us as a title.
The aim sounds beguiling and even noble, if I may say so, as put by the noble Earl. Unfortunately, however, there is an unbridgeable gap between the aspirations and the mechanism proposed for achieving them. The mechanism proposed is the market-place, with our successful public service broadcasting system largely destined for the ball and chain of demolition.
We on these Benches are not alone in our anxiety, which is widespread. According to an article in the Observer last Sunday, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who, when Home Secretary, established Channel 4, is said to have expressed concern about the auctioning of franchises. He is reported as being unconvinced that the quality and standards of television will be maintained. He is quoted as saying:
"If advertising revenue suddenly drops, as has happened before, I'm sure television will be forced down-market because of lack of finance".
I and many others not on my side of the House or even belonging to the same political party welcome the noble Viscount's words of caution, as he has great ministerial experience in this field and obviously considerable courage.
Yes, we shall have more competition. But there is a risk that it will be competition for mass audiences, to please advertisers. Experience abroad shows that such competition inevitably leads to a flight downmarket. Yes, we shall have more choice. But it will be a choice of many channels rather than a choice of different kinds of programming. We may have quality, but in the commercial sector only on the new channels for which the public will be charged in a range of different ways. So in the end quality programmes will be available only to those who are able and willing to pay for them.
With so many speakers and so many complex issues, I shall restrict myself to four areas which I believe are some of the worst examples of the White Paper's proposals.
First, the Government propose that the award of franchises in the ITV regions, which will be Channel 3, will be decided by auction, with the licences awarded to the highest bidders. This system will remove the incentive for ITV to maintain high standards, since all a successful bidder will need—in spite of what the Minister said so engagingly—is some pretty slender promises about quality and a

845
very large capital outlay. How can a system like this possibly encourage choice and quality?
What the Government should do is abandon the idea of the auction altogether and return to a system in which the company which seriously promises and is able to deliver the best service to the viewer is awarded the licence. If, as at present, it does not come up to scratch then the licence should be taken away from it. Under present plans, a company like, for example, Granada with a tried and tested commitment to regional and quality programmes could be outbid by an entrepreneur with no track record but more money, who, instead of concentrating on the production of good programmes, would spend the next 10 years ploughing profits into repayment of interest and capital. That would be in addition to the levy. What a Treasury bonanza that would be! Then of course the company could be snapped up by another eager entrepreneur who fancied running a television company and had made no promises of any kind to any regulatory body.
Who will benefit from that? Not the viewer, for whom the Minister is so rightly concerned—and I am sure he means it—not the viewer for sure, but again the Treasury. If the Government still insist on going ahead with the auction, they should at least invert the process and have a genuine quality control exercise among a shortlist of bidders for the licence. Alternatively, they should adopt the Peacock Committee's recommendation that the IBA should not have to take the highest bidder. Even the auction, in that committee, went through on a split vote, as I am sure your Lordships remember.
This brings me to my second area of concern: quality and control. Quality standards apply not only to productions of opera, not only to drama and serious documentaries, which are what so many people always have in mind, but also to serials, situation comedies and current affairs. However light or however serious the topic, the element of' quality makes all the difference between a poor programme and a good programme. We now have a regulatory structure for commercial television which is directly responsible for the range and quality of ITV. It may not always be perfect and does not win all the time, but the quality threshold referred to in the White Paper is, I believe, bound to fall some way below the quality standards that current viewers have come to expect and which could all too easily become eroded and lost for present and future generations.
What worries me is that as the younger generations grow up and only see programmes of a pretty low quality on their television screens or hear such programmes on their radios, their expectations will be low. They will not be able to have the opportunity to aspire to something better because they will not have had the example put in front of them. This applies to many other things in life and at the moment it applies to our television and broadcasting service.
What is the lighter touch that we hear about? The Minister explained it as well as he could within the context in which it is set. However, it remains a very imprecise and blurred concept which inspires little
846
confidence and will quite understandably lead people to believe that it really is a good old free-for-all, with the very lightest of touches just for the sake of it. The Government must define more precisely the obligations for the range and quality of programmes they envisage for the new Channel 3 and the proposed Channel 5. Channel 5 will cover only 70 per cent. of the country.
The White Paper carries obligations only for news and schools programmes. I know it mentions current affairs programmes, but not in peak times. Therefore, it is essential that the existing four channels—the only ones universally available—are able to offer the same scope and the same quality as they can today.
Similarly, the Government must define more clearly the regional obligations of the ITV companies. We welcome the Government's commitment to retaining the present regional structure of independent television, but we must ensure that the obligation to produce programmes in the regions goes further than local news and current affairs. If the whole country is to see and benefit from regional culture, regional programmes must include arts, religion—I imagine that the right reverend Prelates who are to speak later will have something to say on that subject—drama, documentaries and adult education, which is not mentioned, and children's programmes, as well as schools programmes, which are the only programmes mentioned.
Locally made programmes must have access to network schedules and network budgets to survive. But all this will come to nought unless the Government recognise that the regional system itself, together with the funding of Channel 4 and the provision of network programming, all rely in different ways on the continuation of the cross-subsidy system which we have now.
High quality transmission of programmes is essential. Those noble Lords who have seen some of the transmission standards in other countries will know how good our standards are here. But transmission responsibility is now to be taken from the IBA and privatised. Why is that? It is another example of the Government's obsession with privatisation. Complaints about quality standards are rarely heard, but do the Government recognise that if they hive off transmission services to private operators, overall standards could be jeopardised and costs increased? No one then will complain faster than advertisers if their advertising message is not transmitted to the quality they are used to now. The viewers will not like that very much either.
Thirdly, the Government have accepted the value of maintaining Channel 4's remit to produce both minority and experimental programming. The Minister went into some detail about that. Because it is insulated from the market and does not have to guarantee its own income, Channel 4 has the freedom to develop new and stimulating ideas. It has allowed new, small independent companies to prosper. It has cultivated a new generation of comics, playwrights, film makers and other creatively talented people and generated a wealth of new ideas which would not otherwise have reached our screens.

847
Yet Channel 4 will not be able to finance such programmes if it is left alone in the market place, or if the status quo is replaced by one of the options in the White Paper. We feel that none of those options offers satisfactory substitutes for the present arrangements. If the Government seriously accept the continuation of Channel 4's remit, it is essential that Channel 4 should retain its present financial relationship with ITV. That relationship could perhaps be extended to the new Channel 5.
Fourthly, the BBC has been and remains the finest tradition of broadcasting in the world. That tradition is unalterably based on the licence fee. Yet the Government are suggesting that that might—I suggest the word "might" should be replaced by "will"—be phased out in favour of subscription. The Government were advised against that by their own consultant, Dr. Charles Jonscher. He is known in the field as a great expert.
Once the BBC is forced to fish for revenues in the same pools as unregulated broadcasters, its obligation to provide both range and quality in its programmes will be at risk. Furthermore, a large minority of people—as time goes on that minority could constitute the majority—who are already economically disadvantaged through unemployment, retirement, disability or simply low pay will become culturally disadvantaged as subscription will be beyond their means. That subscription will be well above the amount they are paying in the form of the BBC licence fee. There is more one could say about the BBC, but in view of the number of its ex-chairmen, deputy chairmen and a present vice chairman who are going to speak later in the debate, I feel the discussion can be carried forward better by others than myself.
I turn for one brief moment to satellite broadcasting. We shall have to see what programme standards are achieved by the new satellite broadcasters. At the moment satellite broadcasting is in its infancy. But one thing is certain: its budget will not be able to equal that of the programmes we enjoy on our terrestrial services. That will not be possible for a long time to come. That is generally accepted. Satellite broadcasters will be subject to virtually no control. Indeed control of satellites uplinked from abroad, as referred to in paragraph 7.14 of the White Paper, is frankly laughable. It looks as if our new censor, the ridiculous Broadcasting Standards Council, will be our protector from what we should not view. The council will protect us from the satellite programmes that we should not see. That makes no sense at all. Whatever happens to the new channels, and however successful some of them may be, our existing four channels will provide the vast majority of viewing time well into the nineties. It is those channels which need protecting.
Until now governments of all complexions have introduced change to broadcasting gradually. We can look back to the introduction of BBC 1, then BBC 2, then to the coming about of commercial television, which incidentally was opposed in the beginning by my party. I believe that the opposition that was felt to it at the time led to the kind of
848
regulatory system which then made it such a successful and good part of public broadcasting.
Governments have sought to assess the impact on existing services of one new channel before introducing another. In the past they have wished to assure themselves that more would mean better and the viewer would be genuinely served by new choices. Again I must remind the House that the Minister said in so many words that the viewer and the listener were the most important factors. That applies to all the debates we have had and those we will have in the future on broadcasting. I fear that this Government are using technology as a means of imposing their ideology on broadcasting. But no technological revolution justifies uprooting so wantonly the product of gradual, thoughtful and extremely successful evolution.
This debate has followed very closely on the publication of the White Paper. We hope the Government will, as the Minister assured us, respond to the views and reservations expressed. As the Government claim gratitude to the Home Affairs Committee report, perhaps they should re-read paragraph 23, which states:
"To discard the very factors which have contributed to the universal esteem in which British broadcasting has been held would clearly be unwise and arguably unnecessary".
This debate will show that if the Government are not prepared to listen or make changes they may well find themselves presiding over the destruction of what has over 30 years become a highly valued national asset.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I have been over this ground before quite recently and I should like to take the opportunity of associating myself with the very persuasive criticisms she has made of this complicated and important White Paper we are discussing today. She has marshalled substantial and extremely convincing arguments calling into question some of the proposals which would auction franchises to the highest bidder, which would rest quality control on a series of sanctions that are unlikely to be effective, which do not define the regional responsibilities and obligations with sufficient rigour, which leave the financial structure of Channel 4 uncertain, to say the least, and which seem to be running down some of the aspects of the BBC, to which I shall return later.
However, I welcome, as the noble Baroness did, the offer made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to listen to what those of us from the bottomless pit of greater or lesser experience can offer, and I hope to take the chance which has been given. I would say that last week when we were discussing terrorism and broadcasting the Government found themselves somewhat on the horns of a dilemma, because if broadcasting is as powerful a means of communication as they suggested, to censor it is an extremely grave step. If, on the other ha d, the changes they were making were trivial, why take such draconian steps to deal with the matter in this fashion.
The Government's present White Paper presents another dilemma, or so it seems to me. If its proposals

849
offer the consumer liberation, a wider choice, a wider variety of programmes and an extension of his freedom, why is it necessary to create some three levels of monitoring, culminating in the Broadcasting Standards Council, to regulate, control and check that choice—unless of course it is envisaged and foreseen that this liberation, this proliferation of choice and this keeping of the market place as the ultimate regulator, will ultimately lead to a lowering of standards? Of course that is the assumption they are making. It is one which we have to consider seriously and it may be necessary to produce these regulatory bodies that are proposed.
The second dilemma they have faced themselves with is that, if you leave it to the market place and if the market works, not only will consumers have more choice and variety but competition should bring down the price and the cost. It is not so under this dispensation. The White Paper says singularly little about what the consumer will have to pay for these new services, but the estimates that have been made show that there will be a considerable rise in the cost to the consumer. It is estimated that the cost will rise from four to seven times, from £112 a year today to something like £1,000 in the first year of broadcasting, depending on how many services the listener or the viewer opts into.
The White Paper refers in its title, as the noble Baroness pointed out, to competition, choice and quality. It does not resolve these dilemmas and indeed it hardly speaks at all about the cost to the consumer, the viewer, the listener, who, according to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was to be the centre of attention. He is the centre of very expensive attention so far as he himself is concerned. As the noble Baroness said, the order of the title is a little worrying: competition, choice and quality. Since quality is something we have been discussing it seems a pity it comes last, and I believe that it will come last if the Government's plans are put into effect unamended.
The fact is that the White Paper is the culmination of a long and carefully-orchestrated campaign, sometimes led but always supported by The Times, which had some interest in destabilising the existing system of broadcasting, and by the advertising lobby, which had some interest in lowering the price of advertising, against public service broadcasting. First, the BBC was the chief target and it was succeeded by the IBA.
In my view, the White Paper is largely window-dressing. It is a display made in such a way as to give a falsely favourable impression of the facts. Behind the window-dressing the intention seems to me to be transparently obvious. It is ideological and political. The ideology is yet another obeisance to the market place. The political element is to gerrymander the control and the ownership of television in this country. The purpose is to produce an ownership of television much like the ownership of the press; that is, overwhelmingly controlled by the supporters of the present Government.
The White Paper foresees a tightening double squeeze on the BBC as the nudge towards subscription becomes push. May I say that, for public
850
service broadcasting, subscription is about the most inept form of finance that could possibly be devised. If you believe in the principle of public service broadcasting, you must believe in the principle that it should be available to the public at large. If you were doing educational programmes on AIDS you would want as many people as possible to see it, whereas subscription deters. It deters, first and above all, those whom you want to reach in many cases: that is, the ignorant, the poor and the lazy. And so to nudge or push the cornerstone of public service broadcasting towards subscription television is to deny it the means whereby it can best fulfil its function.
What the White Paper foresees after 1991 for the BBC is a kind of euthanasia, as far as I can see. As for the IBA, it is replaced by the ITC. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the franchises will be awarded to the highest bidder. This seriously worries me so far as the public service element is concerned. It worries me still further when I read that the proposed new chairman of the ITC, Mr. George Russell, has given his views on public service. This is what was said in the Independent on the 3rd of this month:
"Mr. Russell indicated … that he was likely to insist on news but not much of the rest"—
that was religion and education; and he said—
"News always pays its keep but I don't know whether the others pay for themselves. If they don't, I would challenge strongly what they are there for".
This is the man who is to maintain the standards of quality under the new dispensation. I do not know when—I hesitate to embarrass any of those who are present who should know—religion has earned its keep; and nor did I know that the principle of universal education was based on the profit motive.
So there we see what we are moving toward—a system in which television will be in the hands of the highest bidder and in the control of moneybags. Moneybags subscribe to the Conservative Party; the Conservative Government sell the franchises to moneybags. Meanwhile, the franchise fee goes straight to the Exchequer. The levying system means that less and less money will be available for making good programmes. The net result is to deliver audiences to advertisers as opposed to delivering programmes to audiences.
To understand the White Paper it is necessary to realise that it is written in code. I have composed a small glossary to enlighten noble Lords on its meaning. "Choice" means "a larger number of channels in which indistinguishable programmes are available"; "lighter touch" means "lower standards"; "public service" means "private profit"; for "quality threshold" see "lighter touch". Then, in the presence of the noble Lord, perhaps I may say that there is another word in the White Paper; namely, to "Mogg", that is to bowdlerize. Charles Bowdler produced the family Shakespeare. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, will produce family sex and family violence on our screens. We know his rather eccentric criteria for sex that is acceptable, which he called "Romeo and Juliet sex". I must advise him that Bowdler had to cut 15 lines out of Juliet's speech in which she longs for the return of Romeo and which

851
starts, "Gallop apace" because he thought that it was unsuitable for family reading.
In all this there is a mystery that I cannot quite solve. There will be a proliferation of channels. That has been recognised and we welcome it so long as the proliferation is well used. One may have some doubt about whether there is enough talent to fill 40 television channels all day and all night long. They will obviously have to be financed commercially and clearly there will be commercial and financial pressures to force them down market. Hence, in my view, the proliferation of channels makes the retention of a public service element all the more important. To retain one sector immune from those political and commercial pressures seems to me a matter of some importance if standards are to be maintained and sustained. That seems to me to be an argument which ought to appeal to the Conservative Party as the self-appointed guardians of our traditions, habits and practices. In this country we have produced a very good system of television—and they have contributed significantly to it.
There is no reason why that need be abolished before we have tested the new system that has yet to be introduced. The two could perfectly well run alongside each other until we have obtained some experience. But that is not the direction in which this White Paper appears to be pointing. In my view it opens the way to higher costs to the consumer and lower standards for the viewer. I hope that in the time between now and the introduction of legislation based on this White Paper the Government—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary—will listen to the voices raised not only in this House but outside it which have expressed warnings as to the consequences of following a too rigidly doctrinaire policy.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, noble Lords will have noticed that there are two Bishops in the list to speak in today's debate. We look forward to hearing before long the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. Before I come to my speech I hope I may trespass upon your Lordships' time to express the sympathy of your Lordships' House to the diocese of Winchester through its Bishop and to those other parts of the South of England over the dreadful tragedy that has overtaken many of their people in the Clapham rail disaster. We send our sympathy and our prayers to them as we think of the tragic deaths, the grievous mutilations and horrible shock that have been caused to so many people at this time.
I am sure that we are all very grateful for the opportunity that has been given to us in this debate to reflect upon the Home Office White Paper so soon after its publication. It sets before us three words: competition, which we accept; choice, which we approve; and quality, which we warmly applaud. I speak as chairman of the Church of England's Committee for Communications. I make no secet of the fact that considerable unease has been felt throughout the churches when it was learned first
852
that British broadcasting was being reviewed by Her Majesty's Government and then that drastic changes were being planned. It is due partly of course to innate British conservatism, to which the churches are no strangers, but primarily to feelings of mistrust about who would in fact call the tune in any new deregulated broadcasting world. Would it indeed be the viewer and the listener, or would that voice lie somewhere else? I have to say that since the White Paper was published some of those fears have been allayed; others, however, have been reinforced.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain. It is widely known that the main voluntary activity of the British people now consists of watching television. I am told that the statistic is 27 hours per person per week. I am astonished at how they find the time. Further hours are given to listening to the radio. Whether these relatively new habits in themselves are healthy or unhealthy is not our concern today. But if the people of this country have adjusted their social habits to give the television set pride of place, then the values presented to them, and to all of us, on its screen are certainly to do with the corporate health, both moral and spiritual, of the whole nation.
Therefore it is heartening that the word "quality" appears not only in the title of the White Paper but also generously throughout the text. Much is made of the high standard of the programmes made in Britain. The White Paper acknowledges that and it is also emphasised by critics of the White Paper. However, there are those within the broadcasting industry as well as among the viewers who are uneasy. It is true that today's best dramas are as good as or better than yesterday's. Certainly some of our factual programmes could be the bench-mark for the whole world; and (amid a good deal of dross) there is some splendid light-hearted entertainment. I know of several senior clergymen in the Church of England who have confessed that they would not for anything miss "Blind Date" on a Saturday evening even though it may play havoc with the preparation of their Sunday sermon.
But is the general quality of programming today what it was five years ago? In my judgment the answer is no. It worries me that too many current affairs programmes adopt the "guilty until proved innocent" pose of the unimaginative investigative journalist. And why must we have so many game shows, with their hyperactive presenters and induced applause? I would not want to say a word of criticism about the news bulletins because I am full of admiration for their achievements, but perhaps even there I may offer the friendly comment that we do not want to see them become mere tabloid television.
By and large I share others' appreciation of the quality of broadcasting in the United Kingdom but equally I should welcome even greater vigilance to ensure the maintenance of that quality and the improvement of standards. "Standards" must include the standards of taste and decency which the White Paper says will be strengthened and reinforced by the Broadcasting Standards Council, a body on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough will serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg.

853
The Church of England is one of the bodies invited to submit evidence to the council in its prestatutory phase. We are working on that at present. Some say—and we have already heard hints of it—that the Broadcasting Standards Council smacks of paternalism. They point to the on-off switch and say that that is the only regulator the public should need. However, radio and television are not commodities that we choose to purchase like newspapers. We have paid for them already by licence fee, subscription or in the price of the goods that are advertised. They come as services, rather like gas and water, being piped into our homes. We have a right to expect that they have been filtered for impurities before reaching us. We also expect them to have passed positive quality control tests.
The government proposals are described as being notably light on regulation. I can understand why. I can sympathise with those who say that, having done their best to banish that which offends decency, they consider their job done. But the New Testament , as some of your Lordships may recall, contains the parable of the seven devils. Sins of commission have to be avoided but the other kind—the sins of omission—require even more strenuous activity if they are to be dealt with properly. I hope that the regulations will not be too light.
It simply will not do to leave quality broadcasting to good intention, to a free-for-all in the market place or to retrospective finger-wagging with a combination of yellow and red cards. That has not done a noticeable amount of good for association football. Far greater demands on the independent television system should be made so that it continues competing with the BBC for the best that public service broadcasting can achieve. In return, the state levy, in whatever form it is proposed, can be gauged to allow for creativity and balanced diet programming both for the benefit of the audience and for a reasonable return on investment.
The Minister has told us that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is to have, as its new chairman, Mr. George Russell who is also chairman-designate of the new ITC. We wish him well. He is not only knowledgeable about broadcasting; he is also skilled in managing removals without too many breakages. This ability to conserve will be invaluable. There is much seasoned experience in the IBA which must not be lost in the move.
The Government are to be commended for the attempt to deal with almost every aspect of broadcasting in 45 pages. It is unfair to ask too much of them at this stage. However, there are some points on which the anxious public, whose views I have tried to express, need reassurance. First, will the feared continued decline in quality be arrested? Secondly, will the nation's health be safeguarded, and will the Government take some responsibility for that and not leave it solely to the Church? Thirdly, I ask that the freedom of the viewer to view is not controlled in the last resort by the cheque book capacity of the advertisers. Those are our fears. And as yet they have not been entirely allayed. I have not even mentioned the drastic diminution of religious television that the proposals guarantee.
854
I do not wish to conclude on a negative note. Therefore, I say that the White Paper also opens up new opportunities offered by technology both to continents and to tiny communities. I hope that at the latter end local churches will look at the potential of the new community radio stations for strengthening neighbourliness. On the larger scale, communication satellites, fibre-optic cables, microwave and other forms of terrestrial transmission could indeed help "nation speak peace unto nation". These are developments that we would all welcome.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare a small financial interest in a small independent radio company and at the same time ask the noble Lord to excuse me if I have to leave before his winding-up speech. Unhappily, the tragic accident in the South-East yesterday makes it very difficult to get to and from the coast easily.
The publication of the White Paper has not done what I hoped. It has not dispelled many of the rumours that have been disturbing the industry for months. Nevertheless, it has helped us to know some of the Government's intentions. However, many questions remain unanswered. Any information that can be given tonight on behalf of the Government, especially on timing and dates, will be of great help to the broadcasting industry.
The Statement made last week about the proposed new chairman of the IBA, who will become the first chairman of the Independent Television Commission, would seem to suggest that the change-over will be smooth, and more or less automatic once the necessary legislation has been passed. But will it? It is important to know when it will take place. It is not a question of this gentleman, Mr. George Russell, leaving one evening as chairman of the IBA and arriving the next morning as the first chairman of the ITC. During that period he will have to take decisions that materially affect the new job he will be doing.
I should like to refer to the current contracts between the programme companies and the IBA which are due to end in December 1992. Which of the two, the IBA or the Independent Television Commission, will be responsible? To have any value these contracts will have had to go through all the procedures and to have been approved at least 12 months before the new contract begins on 1st January 1993. Perhaps the IBA will still be in existence. Perhaps the change-over will not have taken place. But perhaps also the new ITC will have that new responsibility.
We are told that the contracts will be on a regional basis. Those of us who know the industry think in terms of 15 companies and 15 regions. However, it does not necessarily mean that there should still be 15 companies, even though there are that number of regions. This is the question that has to be answered. The White Paper is very unclear.
I do not wish to frighten anyone. However, could not London perhaps have three companies instead of two, Thames and London Weekend Television? Could not Grampian and Border television disappear into one Scottish television? All these

855
would still be within the region because the existing contracts are served very largely by the transmitters within the area. If the ITC has to make the selection, then apparently it is to be overlooked during that process by the BSC—the Broadcasting Standards Council—under the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. The actual word in the White Paper is not the one I have used; it is not "overlooked". The document uses the word "overarched". The ITC is to be overarched by the BSC. Who is to overarch the BSC, while it is doing the overarching of the new ITC?
The newly-formed ITC will not be responsible for programme transmission. We know that. The IBA will be—until the last day before it disappears. What will happen? Are plugs to be pulled on that night, or will programmes continue? Of course we know that programmes will continue.
There seems to be a suggestion that an increase in the number of minutes of advertising per hour will have to be considered. Is that a government decision? At present it is an IBA decision. But if the number of minutes of advertising is increased a warning should be issued that any such increase in advertising time can only come out of programme time. One cannot take more out of 60 minutes without reducing the programme length.
We are told in the White Paper that the quality of service need not be prescribed. This means that there need not be pre-scheduling of programmes. How will the Broadcasting Standards Council function if it is not to prescribe? Will it wait to see a programme before it decides whether that programme should have been seen? Again, who is to monitor the advertisement content? That problem has sometimes caused difficulties to the IBA that have had to be resolved. Who is to do that? Currently, under the IBA, a programme franchise holder cannot be subjected to takeovers on the Stock Exchange. He cannot even sell blocks of shares; he is prevented from doing so by the IBA. However, this control is to be removed. As already pointed out by the noble Baroness, there can be a change in a company overnight if sufficient blocks of shares move in the right direction.
We are told that the Independent Television Commission is to have the right to apply "tough sanctions" on programmes but that it must do so with "a lighter touch". I find that a little difficult to understand. Perhaps that is my fault. But it is surely difficult to apply tougher sanctions with a lighter touch.
The fourth channel is to be separate from other independent companies, funded from the revenue of advertising it has sold itself, not in conjunction with any other company. It has been successful to date simply because it has been funded by the other programme companies through the IBA. If it is to rely on its own programme sales one never knows what will happen. One must think also in terms of the Welsh language programme. We are told that it is to continue. On this the Government are quite clear. Even in the mind of the Government, who are a little difficult on a number of things, it is clear that there cannot possibly be sufficient Welsh advertising revenue completely to cover the cost.
856
The proposed fifth channel is welcomed. But the suggestion that it is to be divided into several companies is not easily understood. Does this mean, for example, that a programme company covers the North and another covers the South? Or is it a matter of timing? How is the fifth channel to be divided, with one company controlling the whole of the country for three and a half days and another company controlling it for the other three and a half? All these questions have to be answered, and soon.
Both the BBC and the IBA have most valuable advisory committees. I mentioned them in the House only a few days ago. I hope that they are not to disappear under what is known as the lighter touch. The proposal that the BBC will collect its own licence fee is a good idea. I have always felt that that was important. But it must not start empire building and erecting departments so large to collect the licence fee that it will be hardly worth doing.
The Independent Television Commission will be responsible for the collection of the government levy. The IBA has done that until now, but the Government must be prepared for a considerable reduction in the levy if they go into the full field they are describing. Is the levy to be the first charge on advertising revenue? It was at one time. The first thing the programme contractors had to do was to pay the levy. That was altered in the days of another Conservative government when they had the rather more sensible idea that the levy was not paid until programme costs were taken out of the advertising revenue.
The White Paper also seems to suggest that there will be sufficient advertising revenue to fund three national radio stations, the existing independent television channel, the new fifth channel, Channel Four, and numerous local radio and community radio stations. Is that not over-optimism? Is that kind of advertising revenue really there?
Much mention is made of subscription, and that is not very clear either. The BBC's night hours and eventually the whole of BBC production will rely on subscription. What kind of subscription? Will it be so much per channel? Will it be rather like the present licence fee at so much per year or so much per programme? How is it to be collected? None of these details is contained in the White Paper.
I have always regarded cable television as a slow starter if a starter at all. I do not want to say "I told you so", but I am not surprised that the cable authority is to be disbanded and that investors, according to the White Paper, are hesitant.
My only comment about DBS is that no international committee, similar to the one that has been working in Europe, despite its hopes and its genuine objectives, will be able to control programme content coming from Europe—if you wish, coming from Luxembourg. By all means amend the Obscene Publications Act. That might help. But one cannot control whatever comes in by direct broadcasting from a satellite over Europe. I am worried that eventually all television and radio transmission is to be privatised. No private company, not even British Telecom, if that is in mind, can equal the skill and research performed by the IBA and BBC engineering

857
sections, both internationally recognised in this field as the best in the world.
I conclude by imploring the Government to give the broadcasters as much detailed information as they can about the timing of proposed changes. Every little will help in this direction. I mention one or two dates. The existing programme contracts end in December 1992. The BBC charter ends in 1996. A general election may take place in the autumn of 1991 and, true to form, perhaps I should say when the SDP is returned as the government—no, I shall not say that—we may have many changes. But these dates are important. I hope that the Government take note of them.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter as a small shareholder in Anglia Television. My reason for speaking today is that I, with colleagues, founded Anglia Television in 1958. I served as an executive for 30 years and retired as chairman earlier this year. During that period I was also chairman of ITN and of ITV Companies Association.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Ferrers that I am not opposed to any changes envisaged in the White Paper or anything else. ITV has a reputation for being resistant but that is totally untrue. I and the industry welcome change, know that it is taking place, and know that is is inevitable. The industry is anxious to take advantage of future technology and to exploit it in the best possible ways in the interests of the viewers and the country.
While supporting the White Paper, particularly the enticing way in which my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave an account of it, I have no evidence from it or elsewhere to show that the viewers have been consulted. However, I accept the fact that my noble friend regards the White Paper as a discussion document with green edges. I am grateful for his invitation to make our comments today.
We are in favour of change. Your Lordships will be surprised by the fact that ITV companies will be glad when the monopoly comes to an end. I hope that the press will also take note of that. The monopoly has long been an embarrassment. The companies would much rather live in the real world and seize the advantages that they can. I should like to prove our disposition. Long before the White Paper was published I led my company, Anglia Television, with Granada Television into DBS, the biggest venture—perhaps I should say "adventure"—so far. It was a quantum leap in broadcasting involving £600 million. Therefore I hope that no one will say that I am "reactionary" or am protecting the status quo.
I shall not deal with the broad base of the White Paper because so many noble Lords will do so. I should like to concentrate on only one issue. If this item did not appear in the White Paper I should find it difficult to be critical. Having made that clear, I wish to speak about the proposed auction of franchises, because it is not generally understood how grievously unfair it could be and what a grave injustice could be done to the 15,000 people working in the industry.
858
I am not opposed to competitive tendering in principle, but I must explain that submitting the existing ITV contractors to auction with sealed bids, against new competitors who have nothing at stake, is unfair and unjust to the 15,000 people in the industry and to the tens of thousands of public investors in the companies. The Prime Minister and Ministers are not unfair or unjust, and therefore there must be an explanation for the proposal. I believe that it must be based on grievous misconceptions or it must be due to a wave of anti-ITV sentiment amounting almost to a vendetta which, after 30 years in the business, I find completely incomprehensible.
The Government have argued that the arbitrary sacking of one contractor at the last franchise affair—the Lady Plowden affair—based on subjective judgments by the IBA, was unacceptable and that therefore there must be something wrong with the system. The truth is that it was the Government's fault in the first place for making a bad appointment. In my view, the decision was unacceptable, and it was a clanger. The truth of the matter is that the mix of the chairman and the director general was unfortunate and led to the clanger. However, if clangers, or one clanger, are grounds for changing an entire system or dismantling an organisation, we would have no government departments left. That is no case for resorting to the extreme alternative of sealed bids.
I find it embarrassing that the Government may still have an obsessive and antiquated notion about ITV contractors being tycoons, apparently coining money at the expense of the nation and the Treasury. That notion has always been fanned by some parts of the press. I must warn my friends in government not to be misled by the press. Almost invariably it is hostile to ITV because of the vested interest of proprietors—I nearly said "proprietor".
Roy Thomson never made that celebrated remark about printing money. I know that to be so and have the details. The remark was made by someone more eminent than he and it was a rhetorical question to Roy Thomson, put some 32 years ago. It is one of the silliest quotes on record and it is sad that even the Peacock Committee downgraded itself by quoting it in print. After 32 years it is unworthy of any responsible person to drag it up when it was never true in the first place.
I have heard it said repeatedly in government circles that ITV contractors must not believe that they have a freehold for life. Fortunately, I am entitled to respond to that comment because one observation—although not made within my earshot but reported instantly—was specific. It was that, "Aubrey Buxton must not believe that he has a freehold for life". Therefore I should like to give the facts about the industry. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I go into detail because it is of the gravest importance to everyone involved. I quote statistics from Anglia Television because it seems more proper, but all companies are broadly similar. Anglia Television is approximately one-twentieth of ITV. It is easy enough for anyone to convert the figures in order to comprehend the industry situation: merely multiply by 20.

859
Anglia Television was founded in 1958; has fought three applications and renewals; became a public company in 1968; and has approximately 3,000 shareholders in the open market. Seven hundred and fifty shareholders are working members of staff and some of them have been with Anglia Television since its opening in 1958. They have homes in the region and they have made their lives in the provinces with the encouragement of the IBA as the Government's statutory agent. Therefore the Government have a responsibility for the welfare and well-being of 10,000 citizens, with their families, in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Carlisle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Cardiff, Bristol, Plymouth, Southampton, Dover, the Channel Islands, Ulster and London. I hope that noble Lords who have connections with those areas, and Members in another place, will bear in mind that those people are in a considerable state of agitation about the auction affair.
Of the 3,000 shareholders, including staff, in Anglia Television the biggest shareholder and one of its founders in 1958 is the Norwich Union with 6·9 per cent. I must repeat that fact because it is of massive significance in respect of misconceptions about proprietors. The biggest single shareholder in that east of England contractor, which is a public company and into which anyone can buy, is the Norwich union with 6·9 per cent. So where is the tycoon about whom people are worried and who must not have a freehold for life? It is certainly not me, even though I was mentioned by name, because I have the princely shareholding of 0·6 per cent.
Like other industries ITV tends to be run by managing directors, programme controllers and executives. I state the fact that today there is not one individual in the industry who has a significant shareholding which would justify such comments. They are the people whom the White Paper appears to wish to see substituted by billion pound bidding tycoons and conglomerates.
On Sunday I watched an interesting debate on television in which some Members of your Lordships' House took part with others. In talking about our position a Member from another place used the phrase "paranoid fantasies". The one paranoid fantasy which I am trying to dispel is the notion that ITV companies consist of moguls, tycoons or conglomerates. Even the Home Office Minister, Tim Renton, on the television on Sunday used the phrase, "The barons of ITV". I was absolutely outraged and propose to tell him so at the first opportunity. That is disgraceful because it proves that Ministers have not been properly informed.
The Anglia pattern which I have described applies broadly throughout the ITV industry. Where a contractor like Granada has a franchise through a subsidiary, the parent is a public company into which anybody can buy a stake. Where there are one or two big companies with a stake in ITV, most are themselves public companies and anyone can buy their shares. Anybody can buy into any ITV contract, and if the Government finally remove all the existing restrictions on share owning, which until now are
860
controlled by the IBA, ITV companies will be no different from any ordinary company in the market.
The franchise affair, competitive tendering, quality assessments or any of those proposals will simply become an anachronism and could even become a farce. Why are some Ministers obsessed about freeholds for life? They even say that somebody else must be given a chance. One tycoon outside the industry who harbours a perfectly proper ambition to own a franchise already owns 20 per cent. of Central Television; that is a huge stake. At a rough guess Mr. Green—and although I have never met him I am sure he is a very charming man—of Carlton Communications already has about 50 times the size of my investment without having done a day's work in the industry for it; whereas I am alleged, in Government circles, to expect a freehold for life with 0.6 per cent. after 30 years work seven days a week.
I read something interesting today which I believe points the way to where this auction business may move. In a financial column in one of today's newspapers there is an article about Carlton Communications. As I have said, I am sure that Mr. Green is a charming man, and good luck to him and Carlton Communications. However, in the City column of this newspaper it states:
"Carlton is poised to take advantage of just about every development in the television field.
Michael Green has long wanted to buy one of the programme contracting companies, having been frustrated from buying Thames, and having to be content with 20 per cent. of Central."
I hope he is content with that. The article goes on:
"Under the proposed system of tendering, he is likely to succeed in his ambition".
Perhaps I may explain why it is so unfair to those involved. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will clarify this issue of ownership and tycoons because it appears that this paranoid fantasy could lead to very serious injustice and unfair victimisation. It is not ITV which harbours tycoons. It is the tycoons outside ITV, with connections in high places in some cases, who seem to have exerted undue influence in the run up to the White Paper, apparently as advisers to the DTI. The unfortunate proposal for cash auctions in the White Paper makes it a tycoon's charter. ITV tycoons are figments of the imagination. The real life tycoons outside, if they offer to pay enough in sealed bids, are now invited to take over or dominate the best regional television services in the world. The White Paper will introduce barons of Channel 3. They do not exist at present. The Government would put the clock back and turn their own arguments on their heads.
Perhaps I may describe what could happen to those involved. It is not simply the auction itself which is abhorrent. If the country and the viewers are found to favour auctions for new channels and contracts, whether terrestrial TV or satellite, that is all right because for new channels all applicants will start level. However, as regards ITV the position is different. For example, if there are six bidders five will start level and have nothing to lose and one, the present contractor, will have everything to lose with a 30 year established station and with staff in the provinces encouraged to live there over the years by

861
Government and the IBA. In Anglia 750 worker shareholders could be out on the streets. It is the same in all regional centres—three in Scotland, two in Wales, 10 in England and one in Ulster.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I presume that if a successful company takes over the franchise, the workers who are dismissed from the company which is the existing contractor will be employed to make television programmes. Will that be so, or is the noble Lord saying that there will be a total loss of employment?
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I was coming to that. I believe that Ministers may have been misled into thinking that the staff will be taken over as they always have been in the past because a local television station, as everybody knows, is an essential and vital component of the local news and programmes. However, the White Paper goes on to say that it is not necessary to have local studios and that is one flaw in the White Paper.
As I said, in Anglia, if the management fail to make the top bid which I believe they almost certainly will, 750 worker shareholders could be out on the streets. It is the same in all regional centres, even though the staff have been encouraged to buy their houses there with government acquiescence. If such deprivation happened in the normal world outside ITV there would be a hue and cry and demand by government for massive redundancy payments and demands for compensation of tens of thousands of pounds for public shareholders, as in the Barlow Clowes affair. Whichever way one looks at the matter, that is injustice. There is absolutely nothing that the shareholder staff or the tens of thousands of public investors could do about that. The individuals in ITV might have done a brilliant job for 10, 20 or 30 years to the entire satisfaction of the public, but they could do nothing at all to protect their livelihood and ensure their future survival. They simply have to sit and wait for someone to open envelopes. Their lives are not in their hands but are in an envelope. Can anyone conceive anything more repugnant than that in British society, in a share-owning democracy which claims to encourage popular capitalism?
Some naive observations have been made in political circles that ITV must learn to live in the market place. Such futile clichés ignore the fact that outside bidders have other businesses and have nothing to lose, while most ITV contractors have only their regional ITV business and will lose everything if outbid in sealed envelopes.
I believe that the franchise affair, whether by quality assessment, sealed bids or any other formula, has become an anachronism. The monopoly is over. The companies are all public companies which can all be bought, either through shares or by being taken over, according to the White Paper. Therefore, the IBA or the new television authority has nothing to offer. There is no contract to buy which will give any security to those involved. It is simply an investment which, even within a week of acquiring the contract, may be taken over by somebody else. Therefore, the franchise affair is outdated and is an anachronism which makes no sense.
862
It could bring considerable derision on legislation which provided such a franchise affair. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to take that on board very carefully before we go too far down that road. I trust that colleagues in government are not already too far committed because the auction proposal will not work. It is grossly unjust and I ask those of your Lordships with regional connections to bear in mind that there are people in the provinces who could be gravely distressed and in difficulties as regards their families and their welfare if the auction affair goes ahead.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest. Your Lordships will be aware that I am vice-chairman of the BBC and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and your Lordships generally, will understand if I concentrate my remarks on the White Paper proposal as regards the BBC. I should say at the outset that the BBC welcomes the responsibility laid upon it by the White Paper—the responsibility to fulfil a special role in the 1990s.
The White Paper states that the BBC:
"will continue to be expected to provide high quality programming across the full range of public tastes and interests including both programmes of popular appeal and programmes of minority interest, and to offer education, information and cultural material as well as entertainment."
That is a splendid endorsement and a challenge, welcomed by the BBC and, I believe, by that 95 per cent. of the nation which tunes into BBC television and radio each week.
The BBC also welcomes the prospect of more choice for the viewer and listener promised in the White Paper. The extension of choice achieved by the introduction of ITV in 1955, of ILR in 1973 and of Channel 4 in 1981, has strengthened the British broadcasting industry and provided pleasure and enrichment for viewers and listeners. The changes heralded by this White Paper can do so, too, but only if they are carefully introduced. For the benefit of future audiences we must make sure that new services are introduced and funded to increase choice and not to narrow it.
Of course, our present broadcasting structures are not perfect. There is limited choice, but new technology is changing this even as we speak. By the end of next year 11 new satellite channels will be available in Britain, offering a variety of new services; but it must be remembered that these new channels will have to spend a great deal of money on distribution and marketing.
The quality of programmes derives from the production talent and the funding available. The great achievement of the present system has been to draw in complementary sources of funding—the licence fee and advertising—to ensure a greater investment in British programmes and in a wider range of programmes than could have been funded from one source alone; and to ensure that competition has been for the audiences and programme makers and not simply for cash. British broadcasting has therefore produced a great deal to be proud of: from "EastEnders" to "The Bill", from "'Allo 'Allo" to the "Nine O'Clock News", from

863
"Christabel" to "The South Bank Show" and my own favourite, "Bread".
The White Paper recognises the continuing importance of diverse sources of funding if broadcasting is to prosper. Subscription has attractions. It creates a direct market relationship between the viewer and the programme or programme channel he wants to buy. It is a form of funding which enables small groups, by virtue of their willingness to pay, to support special interest or premium services. Used to help new services get off the ground, it will increase the choices available to the public in the 1990s.
However, the Government must beware of requiring too much of it. The Government look to subscription, quite properly, to bring in additional money to fund new services—perhaps on Channel 5 and certainly on satellite. At the same time subscription also offers the possibility that it might replace the licence fee. I should like to read to your Lordships the relevant paragraph 3.11 in the White Paper:
"The Government accordingly proposes to authorise the BBC to encrypt its services so that it can raise money through subscription. The extent and pace of the move towards subscription will be for the BBC to judge in the first instance. But the BBC will have in mind the objective of replacing the licence fee. To provide financial incentive, the Government intends after April 1991 to agree licence fee increases of less than the RPI increase in a way which takes account of the BBC's capacity to generate income from subscription. If subscription goes well it may be possible to freeze or even reduce the licence fee. The Government has informed the BBC of these decisions and will be discussing the details further before firm targets are set".
That is to run a very long way ahead in anticipating the potential for subscription.
Only two subscription services in the world make real money—Home Box Office in America, which provides a service of feature films uninterrupted by advertising, which in America is not available on other channels, and Canal Plus, in France, which provides mainly feature films, some of them peculiarly French. However, both BSB and Rupert Murdoch have already announced that they will each offer a premium film service on subscription in this country. I wish them well. But how will subscription develop for satellite, for parts of ITV, for Channel 5 or for the BBC? Only time will tell. However, of one thing I am sure—the funding system that succeeds will be the one that is most convenient and cost effective for the national audience.
We cannot anticipate in 1988 the market and funding for programmes in the mid-1990s. If broadcasting is to continue to flourish perhaps I may be allowed to say to my old friends in the Treasury, "Do not be too greedy. You already threaten to take too much in terms of levy and the cost of franchises from the commercial sector."
Here we come to the heart of the matter. We must be aware of the cost involved for the viewer. Mr. Murdoch has already announced that his subscription package, offering films and the Disney channel, will cost subscribers £12 a month. For less than half that price, some £5 a month, we get the entire BBC package: BBC1, BBC2, Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4, regional and local services—all in all, good value for money and of wide national interest. Indeed, it is
864
worth recalling that 25 per cent. of the licence fee—some £250 million a year—funds BBC Radio.
There will of course be potential benefits from subscription. Indeed, the BBC is actually a pioneer of subscription technology in Britain. We have sought permission from the Home Office to run an experimental service for doctors during the night hours when the transmitters are not otherwise in use. This service is automatically recorded on special videos for replay as doctors find it convenient. It is a way of keeping doctors informed of the latest medical developments. The profit from that service will go back to make programmes for the licence payer.
The BBC has also proposed to the Home Office a scheme to extend subscription services on to both BBC channels at night whey they are not in use. This proposal involves a double benefit for the licence payer. It is a flexible business which can be suspended to allow the BBC to show ordinary services through the night when required—during the Olympics, elections, at Christmas or holiday times—but for the rest of the time it allows the BBC to make money from an otherwise under-used resource. That is money which can go towards making programmes for our general audience, but the White Paper proposes to reduce the BBC's ability to make this service a success by removing the night hours on one channel and giving the channel to a competitor. That is a strange kind of incentive to move towards subscription.
As I said, subscription will be a useful new source of funding for British television, but little more can be said of it at this stage. I hope that the Minister can reassure viewers and listeners that it will be developed to bring new choice rather than to deprive them of existing programmes.
The White Paper notes plans to give the BBC responsibility for the collection of the licence fee. I should tell your Lordships that it is our intention to introduce a straight-forward system of quarterly payments by direct debit as an alternative to the annual payment. Generally, we are determined to find systems which will make it more convenient and easier to pay. That does not affect our determination to maintain our programme of economies and to raise money commercially whenever possible to keep the licence fee low. The White Paper recognises that,
"over the past months the BBC has striven for increased efficiency… the Corporation has started on a process of tightening its management structure and shifting resources into programme improvements through savings elsewhere".
I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue this process as well as working hard to supplement the licence fee by other sources of income.
BBC Enterprises, the world's largest exporter of television programmes, has a target of doubling its sales by 1991, and all the profits go back to programme making. We should nevertheless acknowledge the benefits of the licence fee. Because it is collected from the national audience the cost to individual households is low; namely, £1.20 a week. It enables the BBC to produce high-quality programming for all, regardless of wealth, wherever you live, right across the nation.
I now wish to say one thing about the proposal to bring broadcasting within the Obscene Publications

865
Act. I do not seek to defend broadcasters' exemption, though it is worth remembering that broadcasting was omitted precisely because it was so closely regulated by the BBC's charter and licence and the Broadcasting Act. Complaints about broadcasting, deeply felt as they are, are rarely about obscenity. Nevertheless, broadcasters understand and share concern about violence and the effect of television on young and vulnerable people. The BBC's governors regard the maintenance of standards as central to their role, vital in this area of social responsibility but also as regards all editorial standards. The new Broadcasting Standards Council can also have a useful role, particularly in the area of research and monitoring and for the new cable and satellite services.
For the BBC, coverage of news and current affairs is of the highest importance and we have made a renewed commitment to it, allocating many millions of pounds to increase our specialist correspondents; to set up new bureaux; to improve our coverage of foreign affairs—all to enhance the authority, accuracy and fairness of this key area of our output. As the White Paper acknowledges, the BBC has,
"sought to be more open and responsive and accountable to viewers about the way it works".
Of course we will sometimes get it wrong. In over 200,000 hours of radio and television a year, that is inevitable. We will from time to time even upset some of your Lordships and perhaps one or two others.
In conclusion, the White Paper sets out a timetable for the development of new broadcasting services and institutions. The BBC charter expires at the end of 1996. By then the pattern of broadcasting in this country will have changed. The role of new services will be clearer and there will be winners and losers among the new providers. The BBC intends to go on playing its special role in the provision of high-quality programming right across the range for all the audience. As I have said, we welcome the increased choice. That will not be brought about if viewers and listeners are deprived of services they now value and enjoy at low cost.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I cannot remember a White Paper in which the conflict between two departments of state was more nakedly revealed. As I read the Paper an image began to stain my imagination. I saw the Secretary of State for Home Affairs saying to TV Britannia: "Never fear, my dear, I will not let that gang of tycoons running satellite and other TV controls hurt you. Look at the safeguards I have provided; look at Lord Rees-Mogg who is there to preserve you from sexual assault and from violence. Look at the quality tests. What is more, I have kept their hands off the BBC, which will continue to be the flagship of public service broadcasting."
Then I heard from the screen the voice-over of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which we know so well in this House. It is so beguiling, so full of charm, so insistent that competition is always sound commonsense. I heard him saying to TV Britannia: "You are going to be raped anyway, so
866
why not lie back and enjoy it. You will have a wonderful choice of lovers."
Two ideas dominate the Department of Trade and Industry, and two ideas only. The first is how to get the maximum revenue out of television for the Exchequer, mainly of course by auctioning franchises, and by a levy based on income. The second is how to reduce the cost to advertisers and hence to business and industry, mainly by competition. Whether the public will in fact get cheaper products because manufacturers and business will pay less for advertising seems to me a bit dubious. But I will let that pass.
What never flickers across the mind of the DTI is the state of culture of the nation. Perhaps what we have before us is not surprising because, while the public are continually referred to in the White Paper, the viewer is not. That is not surprising, because while politicians like to appear on the screen they really have not got the time to view. I will not argue against the franchise option because it is so much part of government ideology that it would be a waste of time to try to dislodge it. But if one sets up a body, the ITC, to regulate domestic commercial television, why not trust it? Why forbid it expressly, which Peacock did not, to judge between rival bids? Why compel the ITC to accept the highest bid even if it knows, and the informed public also knows, that the highest bidder is either a crook or a shark who will do his best to evade every control and peddle trash?
Under present plans all the shark will have to do is to show his gleaming teeth and issue a smiling brochure. If the Government intend to skin the bidders by forcing them to bid high, why try to skin them again with a levy and one that takes the form of a percentage of advertising revenue at progressive rates? Again, that is calculated to depress programme standards. Why allow one shark to bid for two channels?
If we turn to Channel 4 we can again see the conflict between the Home Office and the DTI. The Home Office pats Channel 4 on the head and says that we need this outlet for minority views. But then the DTI steps in and insists that Channel 4 must compete with ITV for advertising revenue. What will happen? ITV has already told us what will happen. It will schedule its programmes to knock Channel 4 out of the market, and it is a very good scheduler. So, of course, will Channel 5. Very soon Channel 4 will be indistinguishable from either of the other channels.
Every time I look at the programme the Government White Paper has put before us this afternoon, I sit delighted by the sensible proposals for maintaining BBC and Channel 4, despite the criticisms I have made, and for the obligation on Channel 3 to show news and current affairs and to maintain regional broadcasting. But then again I hear the voice-over of the DTI which says, "Well, we lost our fight to break up the BBC, but have you noticed the threat of compelling the BBC to raise, shall we say, £200 million of revenue by subscription? That will force them to hive off a lot of their activities which we will then pick up. We won the battle over commercial television. No need for them to worry any longer about public service broadcasting. After

867
all, it would be unfair, wouldn't it, to force them to have higher standards than satelite programmes".
And so we shall go the way of Japan. In Japan, a first class public service is provided by NHK, which is the equivalent of the BBC. But the commercial service, whch does not pretend to be a public service, attends only to the ratings. That policy, as we know, is the policy of ignoring everything else. We know a good deal through research about who watches television—for how long; what programmes and why people who like watching "East Enders" are equally hooked by "Panorama"; and why those who watch "Dynasty" also watch snooker and football. What people want is a number and a range of programmes. They also want good quality programmes. Of course people would like television to be totally free, but most would pay a higher licence fee even than we have now so long as the choice on BBC was not restricted.
Despite my criticisms, I am less willing than perhaps some other noble Lords to predict the future in terms of unmitigated disaster. I am sceptical of those who hold dogmatic views about broadcasting. Years ago I was asked to sign a protest against the introduction of commercial television. I declined to do so. Later I was asked to protest against the abolition of the BBC radio's Third Progamme. Lucrative as that programme was for myself, in which don spoke to don, I declined again to do so. The noble Earl is quite right. There has to be change in broadcasting. To believe that the Committee on the future of Broadcasting, of which I had the honour to be chairman, said the last word on the subject would be too ludicrous even to contemplate. There is no pundit less credible than last year's pundit. That is what I am.
I re-read last night the chapter of the CFB report on industrial relations. I read it with shame. Although it referred to restrictive practices and overmanning, it said nothing of the corruption among the workforce of some of the television companies and its criticisms were wrapped up in pious reflections about management obligations. The Government have issued their White Paper because cable and satellite transmission is at the door, which in the beleaguered days of the 1970s it certainly was not. But the compelling reason why the Government have issued the White Paper is that the ITV companies and perhaps also the IBA were too tolerant for long of the high production costs and union extortion. The monopoly enabled the ITV companies to charge what they liked for advertising and to soak British business. What is more, this had a knock-on effect on the BBC by forcing salaries and wages to be to some degree comparable with those in ITV. And hence a higher licence fee.
Perhaps I may mention a point of detail to the noble Earl which will show him, I hope, that I am not totally against competition. The duopoly has always insisted that it holds the copyright of television programmes and therefore compels the public to buy the Radio Times and also TV Times if it wants to see what will be on television next week. When satellite and cable programmes are available, will we need to
868
have three or four more publications of this kind? Has not the time come to end this monopoly? A majority of our committee recommended in 1977 that it should end. It is a notable restrictive practice that inconveniences the public and is in restraint of trade in the case of other publications which tell the public what is going on in the entertainment world.
I do not blame the Government for declaring that the time has come for a new deal. I do not even blame them for saying that the new ITC should have a lighter touch than the old IBA. In 1977 this was recommended by our committee. We said that the IBA should not intervene quite so much as it did in scheduling. But that question of control is vital. Why did British television not go the way of American television or Australian television today? Why were the predictions of disaster of those good men and women, who in 1952 believed in Sir John Reith's conception of public service broadcasting and deplored the introduction of commercial television, in the end proved wrong?
I say "in the end" because for a few years—the years of the 1950s—it looked as though they were right. The Pilkington Committee had some severe things to say about the proliferation of quiz shows and giveaway shows on ITV. In this respect I have perhaps a slightly different view of sin from that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. I believe that Sir Robert Fraser and Lord Clark as chairmen were right to take the line that companies had first to make some profits before one could begin to call them to account. But equally right were the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, Lady Plowden and Sir Brian Young to insist in the late 1960s and the 1970s that the time had come to beat the ears off those companies which never went in for anything but the ratings and anodyne programmes. And as we know, the quality of ITV improved enormously and some of those companies lost their franchises. However, it would never have improved unless the IBA had been there to insist that companies which did badly would lose their licence.
I beg the Government to look again at the safeguards which they have proposed for the commercial sector. They frighten all those who know something about television because, at any rate on the surface, they look terribly weak. I doubt whether the ITC can control anything if it starts from the premise that the days of "The Jewel in the Crown", "Brideshead Revisited" and dozens of other first-class programmes are over and commercial television has now no remit to educate and inform and, in so doing, entertain the public.
Political parties are not good judges of broadcasting. They apply dogma to it. Today, as the noble Earl has admitted, the dogma is that we must have maximum competition to ensure maximum choice. Yesterday—in 1977 when our committee reported—the government of the day began to insist that the BBC should be restructured and that political appointees should be attached to its television and radio boards of management. From that fate the country was saved by a general election and by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw.
I do not believe that the noble Viscount would recognise a dogma if he saw one out in the park being

869
taken for a walk. He is someone who has massive commonsense. While he certainly did not endorse all that the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting recommended—and some of the recommendations were considerably less wise than others—he understood the nature of broadcasting. In fact he reminded me very much of Queen Elizabeth I who, on being shown by Sir John Harrington the first water closet, said that she understood the marrow of the affair. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, understood the "marrow of the affair" in broadcasting.
I ask the Government to consider again the evidence which we have of what viewers actually watch and the variety of things that they want, and so perhaps to modify just a little their scheme to take account of those facts. I say to them: do not talk about multiplying choice unless you are certain that you are offering the viewer a real choice.
In conclusion may I apologise to the noble Earl for the fact that I cannot be here at the end of the debate because I have an appointment. I normally try to stay until the end, but I cannot do so on this occasion.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has, as usual, made a most entertaining and yet highly serious speech. I was one of those who can claim, with the father of my noble friend Lord Renwick, to have been a director of the very first company that offered to put on an alternative programme to the BBC. My noble friend Lord Windlesham followed very soon afterwards with Associated Rediffusion. Our company was called the Associated Broadcasting Development Company and it later became ATV. I feel therefore that having been in at the beginning of the story I must say a word in this discussion about the Government's present White Paper, or perhaps I should say—I think the noble Lord, Lord Swann, may agree with me—a multi-coloured paper.
Of the three words in the White Paper's title—namely, competition, choice and quality—I think today especially of choice, although I fully recognise the importance of quality. As I recall, it was George Eliot in Daniel Deronda who said that:
"the strongest principle of growth lies in human choice".
Certainly, despite Labour and other opposition, when we introduced Independent Television in the 1950s, it did coincide with—it may have been by chance—and was, I think, more than partly responsible for, increased economic development and growth in this country. I believe that these proposals may do the same, perhaps even more effectively now.
I believe in choice in broadcasting just as I believe in having a choice of a number of national and regional daily papers, as well as a number of publishing houses so far as books are concerned. Therefore I must congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—for whom I have great respect—and of course my noble friend Lord Ferrers, on this remarkable and in my view highly interesting document. I fully endorse more or less all it says
870
except, like my noble friend Lord Buxton, I think, the question of the auction.
But I return now to choice. We have been slow in this country to develop more alternative television programmes and specialised services. Good on the whole as is the quality of many programmes on our four main national television networks, I think it is sad that we are not yet able to receive more alternatives such as are readily available in most countries on the European Continent, as well as in other regions in North America and the Far East.
I remember curiously enough—as will the right reverend Prelates—that it was we in ITV at the outset in the 1950s who produced in this country the first educational and religious television programmes, which BBC Television had not at that time done, although of course it had done so on radio.
Of course there is some soapy trash on all channels all over the world, as there is, I fear, in other kinds of publishing. But I remember when we started in the 1950s Japan already had its educational programmes going—and the Japanese go on looking at them all night. Further they had already started in the United States.
Indeed, when I was chairman of the Institute for Educational Television, on which I was so ably supported by the late Lord Wolfenden, I helped American friends promote WNET, their educational television network, and I advocated in your Lordships' House the creation of a University of the Air—or, as it is now known, the Open University—before in fact the Labour Government established it in the later 1960s.
Of course some people used to tell me that all television was educational. I suppose in another sense it might be said to be so. I have to go to the United States once or twice a year and I must say that in Washington I appreciate being able to tune in to Cable News Network at any time for news, or to C-SPAN, the channel which transmits continuously debates from both Houses of Congress or, if Congress is not sitting, discussions between Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.
While in New York I tend to stay on Channel 13, WNET, the educational channel—which I have already mentioned—or the Public Service Broadcasting Channel (PSB) both of which transmit many of the best television series and documentaries.
Of course the funding of these services is the major problem. I have only just received briefings from British Satellite Broadcasting and Virgin Broadcasting because apparently our postal services are still not quite back to normal. However, on the issue of funding, I am glad that the Government accept the principle of sponsorship, which certainly is not unduly intrusive in the specific American programmes or channels which I have just mentioned.
Giving the name of the sponsor, say, at the end of the programme is in my view in no way offensive or distracting in the way that some highly skilful commercial advertising is—advertising which is sometimes more interesting and exciting than the programme itself. On the question of funding, I agree too with the White Paper that subscription television

871
should not be ruled out. Indeed, I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on the subject most interesting and balanced.
I think that the BBC should continue with its quality programmes. I fully appreciate that BBC Enterprises is rightly recognised as the world's largest exporter of television programmes. At the same time I sometimes wonder—I do not know what the views of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing might be on this—whether the BBC need have, as it says in its briefing to me at any rate, 1,100 transmitters throughout the country. Surely that might be described by some as possibly excessive. However, I must accept that the BBC's transmission responsibilities are rooted in its charter, which lasts, as we have heard, until 1996.
I also strongly endorse the views of those who consider the present Channel 4 as successful and indeed beneficial. We should thank Mr. Jeremy Isaacs for this and hope that Mr. Michael Grade will maintain its reputation. Its ITN news programme at 7 p.m. seems to be to be the best of all the news programmes in the country; but it lasts only one hour, unlike Cable News Network in the States which goes on day and night. I find that useful.
In Brussels, Luxembourg and elsewhere on the Continent—even in Greece—you can receive many different programmes in different languages, some of good quality. I think that in Brussels you can receive not only programmes in French, Dutch and German but also all the British programmes.
We must not forget the importance of video. I see no reason why ultimately one should not have as many TV tapes on the bookshelves as one may have books—serious books and documentary programmes—although I agree with my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Baker that we should encourage the young to read more books rather than remaining hypnotised by the "goggle box".
Finally, and most importantly, I want to re-emphasise that it is significant that the introduction of ITV in the 1950s was coincidental and, I believe, partially instrumental in increasing prosperity in this country. The present proposals for the expansion of broadcasting should do the same, perhaps even more effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and myself have bred a great many "children" since the 1950s. I support the proposals contained in the White Paper, except perhaps for that of the auction. I agreed with all that my noble friend Lord Ferrers said at the outset of the debate.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House for his skilful introduction of the White Paper and for giving us the opportunity to debate it. He is a skilful parliamentarian. He could rise to his feet at any time and convince the House that the North Circular Road was straight. I do not share his enthusiasm for the White Paper. I found it to be a curious, disappointing, mixed and rather depressing document.
872
I wonder whether I am right to feel that I detected an edge of desperation about the White Paper. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, that it was due to some kind of conflict between the Home Office and the Department of Trade. It may also be as if in trying to set out a plan for the future of British television, the Home Secretary and his advisers found the problem too much for them and in the end out of sheer desperation put down the first solution that entered their collective head. Where they could think of no solutions, they fell back on bromide phrases which sound good but mean nothing. Perhaps I am being unkind, but that might explain (might it not?) why the White Paper was so badly written that it is an affront to plain English; why it is stained with ambiguities and contradictions and constrained by dogma. A look at the future of broadcasting it may be; a blueprint for the future it most certainly ain't.
We all recognise, as other noble Lords have said, that the pattern must change. We cannot close our eyes to the new satellites and pretend that they do not exist. The Government were right to consider what effect those and other developments would have on our system of broadcasting and to bring forward proposals. However it looks to me as though they looked at the matter through the wrong end of the telescope. Faced with those changes, surely the sensible and logical approach would have gone something like this: you sit down and say that big changes are just over the horizon, and that we must take account of them; that our system will never be the same again; that satellites will provide the public with more channels and greater choice; that they will create more competition for advertising, break down the duopoly in ITV and provide wider opportunities for investment. Fine! The problem then is, how can we cope with those developments and at the same time preserve and extend all that is good in our present system? How can we prevent quantity driving out quality?
We have built a television system that is a model for the world. How can we prevent that system sinking under the weight of competition from these new aerial invaders? Instead of taking the sensible and ultimately commercial approach, the White Paper proposes, in effect, that we should take the opportunity to dig up the entire garden, roses and all, sack the gardeners and then wait to see what comes up.
The Government put great emphasis on a wider choice for viewers. That is fine, but that wider choice is already here, whether the Government like it or not. In the next year or so, we shall be able to receive a further 21 channels; five from British Satellite Broadcasting and 16 from Astra. That is in addition to the four that we already have. We shall be spoilt for choice. Along with most broadcasters, I welcome that development; but we shall have little or no control over what those new channels bring into our homes. If the experience of America and Europe is anything to go by, they will most probably aim for the mass market—the Daily Mirror and the Sun reader, although there is nothing wrong with that, because they are as entitled to their television as anyone else. But where does that leave drama, music,

873
the arts, documentaries—the type of programmes at which British television excels?
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, begged the Minister to take account of the experience that other parts of the world have. I beg the Minister to look especially at the experience in America, where they have had multi-channels for many years. What is the latest thing in American television? One sees no drama, unless one calls "Dynasty" and "Dallas" drama, which I do not; one sees none of the quality programmes that the BBC provides except on public service broadcasting. The latest development is "sudden impact" television. One must be violent and rude to the people who appear on the screen. Anyone who has sat in a New York hotel bedroom and tried going through all the buttons, finds that choice is the choice between one quiz show and another. Let us not fool ourselves about choice. There is such a thing as bogus choice, and that exists in America.
What does the White Paper propose to do to ensure that quality programmes will continue to be produced? Very little. There are some pious words about the BBC remaining as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting; but what it giveth with one hand, it taketh with the other. The White Paper suggests that the BBC may in future be financed by subscription and sponsorship. That is precisely the way in which many of the new satellites propose to finance themselves. So, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, the BBC will be fishing in the same pool. It will be in direct competition with powerful international companies for the available money. That can have only one or two consequences. It will either make it impossible for the BBC to maintain its commitment to public service broadcasting, and drive it down market in search of revenue, or force it into a small cultural ghetto, catering on a diminished scale for minorities only.
With a perversity which I find maddening, while the White Paper proposes that the BBC should look to gather more subscription income, it at the same time suggests that one night-time frequency which is a valuable and increasing source of revenue, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, should be taken away and privatised. Where is the sense in that proposal? Why put the BBC at risk in that way? It will be hard enough for the BBC to hold audiences in the next two or three years in the face of the new competition. The one tried and tested source of finance, the one guarantee of quality, has been and still is the licence fee. If the Government are serious about their commitment to public service broadcasting, they will abandon that nonsense and secure the BBC's future by establishing once and for all when the Bill comes forward, an index-linked licence fee. We do not even have to call it a licence fee. Let us call it "subscription", if that is the popular word with the Government: that is what it really is. We are asking the public to pay a subscription of £5 a month, more or less, to receive the whole range of wonderful BBC programmes. Introduce an index-linked subscription for the BBC and make it mandatory and then we guarantee quality programmes until the end of the century. That step alone would remove uncertainty and give real meaning to the Government's colourful words about quality.
874
Let me turn for a moment to ITV, soon to be renamed for no comprehensible reason that I can see, Channel 3. Here, the White Paper is at its destructive worst. We are told that the franchises are to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. There is a reservation that competitors will first have to submit a document which outlines their commitment to minimal programme standards. However there is little comfort here for those who are concerned about quality, for there is no definition of what is meant by "programme standards" nor what services should be provided. Most significantly, there is no mention of a commitment to the arts, drama, documentaries, education or children's programmes; one does not have to bother about them. At present such programmes make up an important part of the output of the ITV companies. Are the new owners of the franchises going to be allowed to ignore these areas? Are we going to have not more choice but less—less arts, less drama, less education, less children's programmes? Or is the definition of choice one that enables us simply to choose between one game show and another?
If the Government are really determined to auction off the franchises, then this first stage of the transaction must be much more stringent. It should surely follow normal commercial practice, which ought to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Young. In business it is normal practice (is it not?) to take into account not merely the size of the bids but the quality of the service offered. One does not ask a local jobbing builder to put in a tender to build a bridge unless one knows he can do it. If he puts in a tender, it may be the lowest but one does not accept it, one takes into account the quality of the services offered. There is no mention of this in the White Paper.
I should like to ask the Minister in his reply to answer one question for me. Will the first and second stages of these bids be made public? Do we have a right to know? If half a dozen great tycoons put in a bid for Central or Thames or any of the other TV channels, will their bids be published, particularly the first stage bids, so that we know what they are actually offering?
The commitment to regionalism is the other point I wish to make. This has been one of the strengths of the ITV system. The White Paper pays lip service to it, but reliable private projections show that at least five of the regional companies will go to the wall if the Government's proposals are adopted. Have the Government really gone into the financial aspects of their commitment to regionalism?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, I am against the auctioning of the franchises. I wish to see a different system whereby the existing TV companies are required under the Bill to widen their shareholding and put themselves on the open market so that in future they can be subject to takeovers if they do not fulfil their commitments and will be subject, of course, to ITC regulations.
The present arrangements for financing Channel 4 have worked remarkably well. Once again I ask, why do we want to change them? Why do we want to get rid of something good just for the sake of getting rid of it? According to the proposals in the White Paper,

875
Channel 4 has to compete for advertising with the much bigger companies. Why do we run the risk of driving them down-market in the search for advertising money? There is not an unlimited amount of advertising money available and the Government must know that. There must also be a limit to what people will pay in subscriptions.
However the central fault of the White Paper is that it makes no serious attempt to estimate what this financial frontier might be or how all these new developments might be sustained. Indeed, with a kind of reckless abandon it ignores the financial problems and believes that there will be enough money out there in that great big commercial world to finance these 21 channels and four others. It then goes on to throw out the idea that we might have a fifth or even a sixth channel, land-based channels. We have not had a chance to digest the 21 which will invade us from up in the sky before the Government are saying, "Let's have a fifth"—which will cut up the advertising cake even more—"and even a sixth". The Government might have great friends who will buy these stations when they are auctioned off but it is not giving them much of a chance if the Government say, "We are going to stand even another land-based channel to compete with you for the existing pool of advertising". That pool is not limitless, there must be a frontier to it and the Government should not charge recklessly ahead, thinking that everything can be financed in this commercial way. That is the economics of the paper boat. What we do is go out to the Chilterns, the source of the Thames, and float a couple of dozen paper boats. Then we rush down to Southend to see which has arrived. That does not make sense.
There are many other issues which I might raise: some have already been covered by other speakers, others will no doubt be covered and some can wait for another day. However, there is one other important point missing from the White Paper and I wish to stress it now. One of the reasons why our networks have not been flooded by overseas products is that we have a voluntary quota; 84 per cent. of all material shown on our screens must be of British or European origin. That is an agreement. It is not statutory, but it is an agreement. Some noble Lords who watch television may think that because they have seen so much American and other material they cannot believe that statement, but it is true. It has left generous elbow room for American and other programmes. The quota has sustained quality and given independent and other producers access to our screens. Without it we should have had less native drama, documentaries and arts programmes, fewer people being trained, etc. I hope that the Government will take on board this vital principle and put it into the Bill so that we protect and preserve native British productions.
I have deliberately concentrated on the negative aspects of the Bill. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will forgive me for that. They are the ones that give me the most concern. However I do not want to give the impression that I am a Luddite, opposed to change. Like many of my colleagues, I welcome what is coming; I look forward to the
876
challenge with excitement. But, like them, I do not want to meet that challenge with one arm tied behind my back or to see what has been so painstakingly built up, in terms of quality television over the years, swept away in a torrent of uncontrolled commercialism. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, we are not talking about the manufacture of sausages, we are talking about something which has cultural significance. We cannot apply the same yardstick to a television progamme as we can to an inanimate commercial product. We cannot run a television channel as we would a factory. Television is one of the most potent influences on the lives and attitudes of our people. Nobody denies that. It is too important to be left entirely to businessmen. Perhaps it is even too important to be left entirely to politicians.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I cannot help looking back somewhat nostalgically to the days when a White Paper was a white paper. I also rather dislike the gloss outside and, in a different sense of the word, inside as well. What are they trying to sell us? It makes me suspicious.
Recent advances in technology of course make possible a lot more broadcasting than we now enjoy. But whether we want it thrown at us at once in a rush, and whether it is wise to alter the whole regulatory mechanism at the same time, are matters that the White Paper does not address. Indeed, it does not really argue the case in a rational way for any of the proposals it makes. It just proposes them.
Throughout my time as chairman of the BBC, for eight years we had the very highest regard for each successive Home Secretary and for the Home Office officials responsible for broadcasting. They understood the complex and rather delicate system with which they had to deal. The White Paper, on the other hand, betrays no such understanding. So much so that to me it just does not feel like a Home Office production. My noble friend Lord Annan, picking it up on some heavenly news channel, has of course made that clear to us. The DTI and, I strongly suspect, other people as well have been involved.
For a start, the White Paper concedes—a little grudgingly I thought—that our broadcasting system is among the best in the world. This is untrue. It is the best, or, as some people prefer to put it, and as I used occasionally to prefer to put it, the least worst. Either way, I challenge the Government to tell us what country does it better. When one has a system that by international consent is foremost in the world, any wise government must surely go cautiously and slowly before starting to alter it. They could so easily make things worse, as I shall try to explain.
The White Paper shows all too clearly, as I say, a total lack of understanding of the delicate and successful balance that Britain has achieved over the years between, on the one hand broadcasting funded by licence fee, and on the other hand broadcasting funded by advertising. No other country in the world has achieved that balancing act. We tamper with it at our peril. On the face of things the White Paper leaves the BBC more or less untouched to get on with its

877
traditional role of public service broadcasting. But the BBC, for all its seemingly powerful and secure position, does not live in a vacuum. On the contrary, it lives in a sharply competitive environment, even if the Government cannot apparently see that.
The IBA could have wrecked the BBC long ago had it chosen to do so and had it not been imbued with the self-same public service broadcasting ethos that the BBC acquired over the years before independent broadcasting came on the scene. Astonishingly, the authors of the White Paper seem to have no understanding whatsoever of this fragile relationship. Nowhere indeed, so far as I can see, do they even mention it. I shall try to explain why I say that.
By the late 1940s and early 1950s, as many noble Lords will remember, the BBC's monopoly position and performance came under increasing criticism. Independent television, after a good deal of opposition, was born. But let me say, as a past chairman of the BBC, that I think the result was beneficial to the BBC. It forced the BBC to rethink things. And it led in due course to the fruitful four-channel system that we now enjoy. However, for quite a time it was very traumatic for the BBC. Your Lordships may have forgotten exactly what happened, but most certainly the BBC has not.
Subconsciously, I suppose, the BBC had assumed that the television audience would be shared between itself and ITV at somewhere around a 50:50 proportion. But quite quickly, in part perhaps because of Independent Television's novelty and also no doubt because it brought a fresh approach to things—still more, because it went for programmes with a wider appeal—the BBC's share of the audience dropped sharply. One might call it crudely the result of going down market on the part of ITV, although I would concede that it was not as simple as that. When the BBC's share dropped to 40 per cent., it began to feel distinctly uneasy. It felt a lot more uneasy still when its share dropped through the 30s to an all-time low, if I recall correctly, of 28 per cent.
In principle, the BBC could have slugged it out. The licence fee was secure. Or was it? Quite soon it became evident that the licence fee was not secure. To what extent the great British public started to complain about paying a licence fee when a large majority did not watch the BBC, I am not sure. But, predictably, politicians complained, and most vociferously. They complained so much that the BBC rapidly concluded that it was seriously threatened and that as a matter of survival it would have to retrieve its position. That by degrees it did, in part by trying harder but also—there is no concealing the fact—mainly by deliberately moving down market in various directions.
I believe that that was the right thing to do. It could be argued that the BBC had drifted too far from public taste. I do not know, off the cuff, how long it took to reach an acceptable steady state, but throughout my time as chairman from 1973 to 1980 the BBC's share stood in the middle to upper 40s. There, both sides were content to let it stand. But if it edged down to 40 per cent., I used to detect, quite rightly, considerable unease. In short, the BBC,
878
despite its licence fee, is as susceptible to market forces as independent television. The mechanism is simply a bit different.
What, then, will be the pressures on the broadcasting system if the White Paper's proposals are brought into force? The Government seem to have forgotten the Peacock Committee's conclusions that advertising could not support ITV as it now stands as well as the BBC. So why do the Government imagine it could support a much increased independent system? They talk of bringing down advertising rates. Although advertising rates are bound to go up and down with the economic state of the nation, as the number of hours of advertising increase the tendency must be for advertising rates to come down, perhaps sometimes quite sharply. That, coupled with franchises going to the highest bidder, plus a levy, cannot fail to put considerable financial strains on the new operators.
Depending rather, once again, on the state of the economy, they will, sooner or later, inevitably be forced to increase their audiences and their incomes by going down market—slowly but sometimes perhaps rapidly. I have little faith in the promises that operators will have to pass a quality test and that they will be disenfranchised if they fail to live up to it. They will, after all, be in the same boat. Perhaps indeed they will all have to be disenfranchised if the economy gets sticky enough.
I am deeply suspicious of the Government's so-called "lighter touch". So, it would seem, is almost everybody else. I have a feeling that most of the time it will mean nothing in particular; occasionally, unpredictable interferences. Finally, why are the Government proposing to abolish the IBA which has, I believe, served broadcasting so well, replacing it with something called the ITC which does not look as if it will perform very different tasks? As far as I can conclude, it is a bit like the change that overtook the university world. The Government want in some manner to end up with a body which does what they want.
Those will be the new pressures. But what will be the new outcome? Will it be a move down market on the part of independent television as a whole? Without doubt that will come about sooner or later. I rather suspect that we shall see the early demise of Channel 4 as we know it. What about the BBC? Will we see a rerun of what happened in the 1950s, with political clamour for an end to the licence fee and hence an end to the BBC? For let there be no misunderstanding. The Peacock Committee was quite clear, following investigations by commercial and academic consultants, that advertising could not support both independent television, as it then stood, and the BBC, except conceivably if proposals were introduced very slowly and over a long period of time.
Let there be no flannelling over the White Paper's remarks about introducing subscription. A number of noble Lords have mentioned that. It is noticeable that Mr. Johnscher of CSP, who carried out the investigation into subscription for the Government, was quite clear that it would only work, if at all, for the BBC in respect of a very limited range of types of

879
programme. Reading the White Paper one would hardly recognise those findings. It seems to me significant that Mr. Johnscher was moved to protest in the press about the Government's misrepresentations of his conclusions. The BBC will not be able to bail itself out by advertising, subscription or sponsorship.
In short, the unique contribution of the BBC to broadcasting in Britain, not to mention the splendid international example it has set, could, and very possibly will, become just a sad chapter in history. So also could, and equally possibly will, the uniquely benign example of the IBA, which is also recognised worldwide, in successfully marrying television financed by advertising with the public service. I wonder whether the Government have any idea of the dismay and astonishment that their proposals have generated worldwide.
I am not arguing that we should do nothing about all the opportunities for increased broadcasting that the new technologies have made possible. Of course we should. And of course there must be changes. But we should be doing that slowly and cautiously by building on the admirable foundations that have been laid over the past 60 or so years. We most certainly should not dismantle the present structure in a mad rush of ill considered change, and enthusiasm for instant change at that. I would only say finally that if the word "conservative" means anything any longer it most certainly does not include instant changes of the type proposed in the White Paper.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I begin by congratulating Her Majesty's Government on the White Paper, Broadcasting in the '90s, representing as it does a great step forward in the advancement of consumer choice. I welcome the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to the accent of the White Paper on the advancing of consumer choice. However, in the same speech the noble Baroness said that existing channels need protecting. I think that position is irreconcilable, because I do not believe that either the BBC or the existing independent television programme companies have a God-given right to broadcast to the nation. They broadcast as a result of the will of Parliament, and for no other reason. I think that should be always borne in mind. It is the consumer who should determine who will be the successful broadcasters, and not the producers of the goods.
As I was suggesting, the White Paper represents a great step forward in advancing consumer choice. The bold and innovative way in which the Government have tackled the subject, despite the fact that they have been beset by advice from vested interests, will benefit the public in very many ways. At last we are going to have a genuine multiplicity of choice for the viewer and the listener. I am not a dismal Jimmy, like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who believes that we will no longer see quality television on public service broadcasting just because we have a vibrant and lively private sector.
880
A paper is to be published next year by the Institute of Economic Affairs entitled Is American Television That Bad? and if that paper is anything to go by it will be quite clear to everybody—and I highly recommend the paper, when it is published, to your Lordships and also to Her Majesty's Government—that it sets the seal on the myth about American broadcasting. To judge by the paper we shall have more public service broadcasting in the future and not less.
The facts about consumer choice and quality in American television so clearly set out in this paper from the Institute of Economic Affairs make me realise what a disgracefully slanted and distorted picture of the United States television scene has been presented to the British people by the BBC, and the ITV companies for that matter, particularly over recent months in their reporting of the terror which is now about to hit this country. I sincerely believe that we have been badly misled. And the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, of judging the quality of American television by sleeping in a hotel room in New York and pressing buttons does not represent the ideal way of doing one's own consumer research into another country's television.
At the very beginning of the White Paper the Government declare their aim to be:
"to open the doors so that individuals can choose for themselves from a much wider range of programmes and types of broadcasting".
We no longer live in a paternalistic society and it is quite wrong for the producers of goods to tell you, the customer, what you should see when they want you to see it. Now we have a fantastic combination of private enterprise plus public service and, above all, quality television. That is why I thoroughly applaud the White Paper.
I would also remind your Lordships that at this time we are being seen on live television via cable. Whether or not that can be recommended as "quality television" is difficult to say; but it makes one small addition to consumer choice, made possible by the sudden impact of broadband communications technology.
It was this understanding of the converging technology which was so brilliantly incorporated into the 1984 legislation of the Cable and Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. Those two pieces of legislation were the first in the world to recognise that the technological convergence of television and telecommunications would at last eliminate any restriction on the number of individual television channels, which hitherto has resulted from the finite nature of the terrestrial broadcasting spectrum.
The current broadcasting White Paper further recognises this technological convergence and takes another important step forward by advocating that the market should determine the pace of its implementation rather than Whitehall. This thread of increasing consumer and market choice, largely made possible by the developments in technology to which I have already alluded, is central to the White Paper and is, I believe, one of its greatest strengths.
I should now like to comment in a little detail on two critical aspects of the White Paper which I believe

881
will be absolutely essential to the success of the legislation which is to come before us in due course. Moreover, because they have not caught the immediate attention of the media, and in particular the BBC and ITV broadcasters, these very important aspects may not yet have been brought to your Lordships' attention.
I start with what I shall refer to as the White Paper's proposed vertical segregation of the broadcasting industry. In achieving the objective of promoting consumer choice, as I understand it, the Government see that they have a role to act as "a hinderer of hindrances". I read now from paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper:
"There should be vigilance against uncompetitive practices and market distortions. Partly for this reason, and to limit harriers to the entry of new operators in the market, there should be a greater separation between the various functions which make up broadcasting and have in the past been carried out by one organisation. These include programme production, channel packaging and retailing, and transmission or delivery".
That is absolutely critical to the whole argument. I think it is the very heart of the White Paper. It was over three years ago that I first confronted the concept of the need for vertical segregation of the various elements of the broadcasting industry. These separate elements are the production, the retailing and the delivery of the signals. Since then I have followed closely the arguments for vertical segregation. I am absolutely convinced that it will be the most powerful tool in assisting the Government to attain their ends of greater consumer choice.
No longer should the means of production and distribution of radio and television services rest in the same powerful media hands, whether they be in the private or the public sector. This idea of segregation has worked with great success in the cellular telephone market. It is to be a mark of the shortly-to-be-denationalised electricity industry, and it will work in the broadcasting of radio and television too.
The White Paper is absolutely right to advocate it in my view. Again I stress the importance of this matter, not so much out of concern for the long distant future but as something that is already occupying government concern elsewhere. Only last June the United States Department of Commerce, through its National Telecommunications and Information Administration, published a report called Video Programme Distribution and Cable Television: Current Policy Issues and Recommendations. Despite starting as they did from a very different historical past, and today enjoying a far greater consumer choice in television programming, as well as having a mature and successful cable television industry, this important report concludes that the United States public is already being threatened with a restriction of choice as a result of activities of the vertically integrated media interests in the television industry.
The report advocates a similar segregation, as does the White Paper that we are considering, between the producer and retailer of television services on the one hand and the deliverer of those services on the other. The NTIA report to which I have referred focuses on the idea of a local common carrier network being available to third party television programme
882
retailers or producers, thereby increasing consumer choice. The common carrier network itself would be prohibited from directly providing such services to end consumers—just the delivery of services that any third party wishes to market. I believe that the Department of Commerce report has it right in this respect, just as our own broadcasting White Paper has.
It is therefore of concern to find that in some areas of the United Kingdom consumers are currently being faced with an attempted hijack by powerful media interests which wish to control or restrict their choice by controlling the cable delivery infrastructure. The cable authority has already awarded franchises covering well over 1 million British homes to a company backed by a vertically integrated United States media giant that wishes to use the cable network to deliver exclusively those programme channels that it chooses to offer and in many of which it has a significant ownership interest, despite the fact that there were local British applicants for many of those franchises. It appears that the cable authority is acting in direct conflict with the spirit of the Government White Paper and I ask my noble friend why that is the case.
The proposals of the White Paper on vertical segregation would stop that restriction of consumer choice by encouraging the development of local common carrier networks using whatever technology that would be available for any programme producer or retailer to use to access the market. I think we must all welcome that. After all, it will be these new local delivery infrastructures which will eventually make the old IBA-type broadcast franchise of limited commercial value. What company would want to bid millions of pounds for a terrestrial broadcasting channel when it (or any number of competitors) can gain similar access to the market for a fraction of that cost by using the new cable infrastructure?
Indeed, I suspect that the "vertical segregation" principle (which incidentally was implicit in the Peacock Report's recommendation 15) can and indeed should be extended also to the telecommunications market. I suggest that come 1990 and the review of the current duopoly policy the Secretary of State may do well to look sideways at that time to see what by then is happening in the area of broadcasting. The segregation of network control from service provision in the local telecommunications market may prove to be the missing piece in the telecommunications jigsaw puzzle. I am absolutely convinced that it is the linchpin of this White Paper on broadcasting and that it must emerge as a prominent element in any forthcoming legislation.
I should like now to turn quickly to the matter of regulation and the proposed establishment of an Independent Television Commission to replace the IBA and the cable authority. I believe that in this world of converging technology the Government should think very carefully before perpetuating separate regulatory environments for transmission networks. The reason is that they will increasingly be carrying all the same signals, whether voice, video or data, in a common digital format. How will the regulators distinguish between a digital stream

883
passing down a network that decodes as a television picture in a home as opposed to a telephone conversation? Will we have to solve that metaphysical conundrum by having an official in every home and every business to see whether what is being delivered over the network is an episode of "Neighbours" or a voice conversation with the local bank manager? In fact under the current regulatory environment, which is largely being perpetuated in this White Paper, we shall have two officials in each place: one from the ITC to regulate television and one from Oftel to regulate voice telephony. It is nonsense and the relentless common digitisation—what a terrible word!—of all information services will increasingly prove it to be so.
I strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to use this important opportunity presented by the publication of this White Paper critically to examine the structure of government departmental responsibility in this area. Who should be responsible for regulating the various elements of the White Paper's proposed vertical segregated television industry of tomorrow?
So far as the delivery function is concerned, that is to say the IBA and BBC transmitter networks and the proposed local delivery infrastructure (using either cable, satellites or a combination of both which would be from an environmental point of view infinitely more satisfactory), the obvious regulatory body is the Office of Telecommunications under the Department of Trade and Industry. Under the 1984 legislation to which I referred earlier those two bodies already award and regulate the local telecommunications licence which every cable operator requires before he is able to build and operate a network to provide television services. I believe that that role should be strengthened and enlarged under the new legislation and not replaced by the ITC, as the White Paper appears to suggest.
However, I must make clear that I see the DTI's responsibility and that of OFTEL as being strictly confined to ensuring that the delivery infrastructure is constructed and operated to conform with minimum standards and to ensure that any service provider—for the provision of television telephony services or whatever—is able to gain regulated open access to the network in order to reach the local market. The Department of Trade and Industry and Oftel should have nothing to do with the content or use of those local networks so far as concerns broadcast material, or in due course, I believe, any other service. However, that may be a matter for a 1990-type telecommunications review.
So what about the critical matter of ensuring that the quality of programming and choice is preserved? In other words, how is the quality of the content of what is produced and retailed to be assured? So far as concerns ensuring minimum standards, can we not safely leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and the recently created Broadcasting Standards Council? Is that not the Broadcasting Standards Council's very raison d'être? Do we not simply want to ensure that the BSC is given all the statutory teeth that it requires to enforce standards of taste and decency in the portrayal of sex and violence by
884
placing all broadcasting material on the same footing under the law as printed material? Surely that is the best way of ensuring minimum standards.
But I, like other noble Lords, am not simply concerned about minimum standards for broadcasting. Like other noble Lords I am determined to see that we preserve the best—the highest standard of television that the BBC, and more recently the ITV companies, have so wonderfully provided to this nation over the years. We can be justly proud that each one of us can recall with little difficulty numerous programmes from the past which are truly classic and which could only have been produced under a system of enlightened public service broadcasting such as we enjoy in the United Kingdom. I believe that the nation should continue to be able to receive two channels of public service television broadcasting and at least one radio channel: I think that these should be BBC 1, Channel 4 and possibly Radio 4.
The task of overseeing this public service sector and of ensuring that the channels fulfil their remit should continue to rest with the Home Office. The Home Office should be encouraged to explore new ways of financing programmes for these two channels and I see no reason why funding should not be channelled via other specialist agencies such as the Arts Council. That happens in other countries, as noble Lords will be well aware.
One may ask: where does the proposed ITC fit in? Where indeed! I am not sure I can see that we require the creation of such a body if the analysis that I have offered is correct. We want fewer regulatory bodies. Our regulatory framework and the bodies that oversee it should be based upon a thorough understanding of the converging technologies. It should not simply be a matter of the Home Office creating its own child this year and the DTI producing its own twin in 1990. Converging technology requires converging regulation.
I conclude by once again applauding this excellent and creative White Paper. I regard it as a charter for consumer choice in television and, if the facts of the United States are anything to go by, an increase in the quality of that choice also. However, we should be careful before seeing vested interests argue any amendment to the fundamental proposals of the White Paper relating to the vertical segregation of the industry into the constituent elements of producer, retailer and deliverer. Finally, we must guard against perpetuating a regulatory environment that reflects the past rather than addresses the true needs of the future.
Indeed, the White Paper that preceded the 1984 Cable and Broadcasting Act, included the following statement:
"As a nation our prosperity has always been built on the vision and genius of those who have been able to look into the future and to shape the present accordingly. Today the pace of change has become such that few can, with any confidence, predict what tomorrow may hold".
This current White Paper at last suggests that it may be fruitless for Government to try to see too precisely into the future. Rather, it argues that government should concentrate on creating the fertile regulatory environment whereby entrepreneurs and established

885
businesses can adopt their various roles of programme-maker, entertainment, news and information retailer or local delivery network, and thereby prosper or fall to the extent that they serve the consumer—in this case the viewer and the listener.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, first, perhaps I may apologise. Being Tuesday night, which is dining in night, I made arrangements six weeks ago to entertain five guests at 7.30. Of course I shall be back after I have seen them into their places but I may miss my successor's speech and perhaps one or two others before we come to the later part of the debate. apologise for the discourtesy: I have to be discourteous to someone.
I am batting number 12 in this list, which is half-time in case noble Lords want a natural break! Of the first 11, apart from my noble friend Lord Ferrers, eight had some special knowledge or had been working for or attached to either the IBA or the BBC. It is typical of our House that we should be able to present such a fantastic amount of knowledge and experience on this very important subject. I forecast only that we shall not be able to deal with this subject thoroughly. With so many speakers and a limited amount of time, one cannot possibly do so. It will be a long time before we see any results. It may even be in the next Session of Parliament. We therefore have time to return to different facets of this problem and I hope that we shall do so.
Ours may be the best television in the world. I think that the format is right. I was there at the beginning; I am therefore a male midwife. I take some pride in the fact that we have a format with a mixture of public and commercial service. It is very good. However, it is easy to say that our television is the best in the world because few of us have lived long enough in other overseas countries to be able to judge. But it is nice to say that British is best and we shall probably go on saying it. My wife and I may be unlucky, but somehow on Saturdays when I turn the television on I find that there is nothing on all four channels which is of any interest to me. It may be the best television in the world but that comment does not apply to Saturdays—or at least when I am at home and wishing to watch a programme.
We should not be too smug, because we also have more video recorders for our population than any other country in the world. Sixty per cent. of' households—many more than any country—spend £300 and have now installed video recorders and make multiple use of them. The turnover of the video tape trade staggered me. I went for a briefing to the British Video Association. The sum of £550 million is spent every year. If these programmes were so superb, as some people believe, why should people go out and spend that extra money in order to receive other programmes or watch time-shift programmes —which may very often be BBC or IBA programmes? However, it is symptomatic that we could do better—and certainly on Saturdays so far as I am concerned!
I do not think it is right to say that "more" automatically means "worse". We had all these
886
arguments when I first came into this Chamber in 1950 and noble Lords were having a debate. Lord Reith and all his chaps were present. It was going to be Gresham's law which would drive out everything and we should all be down in the gutter of the lowest common denominator of entertainment. It has not happened—we found the right formula—and it will not happen. I do not think that "more" means "worse"; it means "different". I hope that it means more choice.
It is no good saying that four channels are enough and why is one wanting more? Satellite broadcasting will make sure that they come; to a lesser extent so will cable broadcasting. The Government are therefore right to grasp this nettle. We have to face it whether we like it or not.
I support the Government White Paper. I think that it proposes a reasonable and correct compromise. I shall be a little critical and I hope constructive. I am glad that the public service broadcasting is retained mainly in BBC hands. I think that it is worth reminding ourselves that £1,000 million is collected every year and given to the BBC. I hope that it gives value for money. I am not sure whether the BBC could not save a few hundred pounds here and there when I see what goes on. But £1,000 million is secure for the present.
IBA stations also have a public service obligation. I confess that I did not realise that apart from the news they have to broadcast a certain amount of current affairs. I had not appreciated that in their contracts some stations have to broadcast 26 hours of social service programmes.
With regard to subscription service and sponsorship, the BBC is not very keen on extending sponsorship. But with regard to many of the sports programmes that we now see I do not think that sponsorship has done our sports any harm. The sponsorship seems to be perfectly well regulated, well disciplined and in no way objectionable. I hope that the BBC will not rule out sponsorship with the subscription service. However, if that happens, the Government would be wise not to say that the BBC should always have the income from all of the licence. If there is £1,000 million, and the BBC is able to obtain other sources of income, some of the IBA companies might say that for their public service sector contribution they were entitled to a nibble of this cake. I hope that the position will be left open.
I also hope that the ITC will find general approval. Now is a highly formative moment and it is right to start with a new regulatory authority. However good commissions and other bodies are, after a certain life cycle they tend to get into a rut. I believe that new blood may be needed. I am sure that the new ITC will cope with the situation under the leaders who will now take up office.
While broadcasting is being reshaped, it is a pity that the Government have not felt able to tackle the question of the BBC coming under the same unbrella of supervision. A noble Lord has said that we have regulatory authorities for gas, electricity and everything else that goes into our houses. We shall have a regulatory body for the independent sector. I should have thought that it would be natural to have

887
a regulatory authority under which the BBC would also come. I know that the BBC says that it has its governors. I have looked through the list. They are highly worthy and of the right age group still to have some dynamism and drive. But they have become loyal friends of the BBC. It is most important that they should retain their independent and critical attitude of mind and not always bark at the corporations's tune on every issue.
I have one other criticism. We all make mistakes and those in broadcasting in particular make mistakes. Sometimes they appoint the wrong person for a series of programmes—too often for my liking. When the BBC makes a mistake I wish it would not say, "He is wrong. You are wrong. How dare you accuse me. You are trying to abolish us," but "I am sorry. I made a mistake." With thousands of hours of radio and television programmes, mistakes will be made. I only hope that people who make the mistakes are not instantly promoted, but are admonished and perhaps left in a cul-de-sac for a few years to cool their heels.
We had a good debate here about "Tumbledown". We pointed out that the BBC had decided to suppress the favourable play by Ian Curteis about Tumbledown and put on a play by Charles Wood who said that he was in favour of drama being subversive. "Tumbledown" came on in prime time. I watched it because I felt that I had a duty to do so. I thought that it was gory, and muddled fact and fiction in a most horrible way. It was a despicable effort. It was repeated in prime time and I saw last week-end that the author was again given a number of excerpts on television, which included another excerpt from "Tumbledown" of the most gory type with a person's brains hanging out. It was desperately horrible and naturally we turned it off and went away. It may be effective, but here is a person who writes very nasty anti-establishment work. The army came in for the worst wigging from him and yet he continues to get more time.
In case it is thought that I am picking only on BBC governors for not having found a proper balance, I may say that I was appalled by a Channel 3 programme series called "A Piece of Cake". I am of the age group who came up with the very gallant pilots who won the Battle of Britain. This was a programme which caused the gravest offence to many people, widows and their children. A letter appeared in the Guild of Airline Pilots Newsletter for December:
"Surviving colleagues from a number of different squadrons confirm, without exception, that the cretinous, ill-disciplined personnel characterised as typical fighter pilots bear no vestige of similarity to the loyal, disciplined, warm-hearted, uproariously humorous, often scared but in the end courageous young men in the fighter squadrons in 1940".
Those were the men who Sir Winston Churchill described as the First of the Few. It is sad that the intention of that author was to:
"explode the mythology and establish the truth about the RAF in the air battles of 1940".
It was put on to tear down the reputations of the RAF and those pilots. I wonder whether action is being taken so that we do not have another series with a similar aspect.
888
I know one of the objections that came up in my noble friend's Answer to a Question recently was that we could not bring the BBC under the control of the same ITC because the Royal Charter laid down that it should not be so controlled. With the help of the Library I have looked at the Royal Charter and the licences. We are all appreciative of the amount of work that the Library does on our behalf and how skilled its members are. I noticed that normally such BBC charters lasted for 10 years. There was one in 1927, then in 1937, and 1947. Then we were recovering and there was re-formation and then a few years were added. But never before in the history of the BBC has a charter and licence been given for 15 years. It was given in 1981. Incidentally it lay on the Table of our House. I certainly did not notice it or hear of it for I should have objected at the time. None of us picked it up and it went quietly on its way—a 15-year Royal Charter. That will finish in 1996.
The House will remember that we have four year elections: 1995 will be the last year of whatever government are in power, so I do not think that they will start re-hashing the whole game again. If this were sacrosanct it may be difficult to change. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of human beings or the will of the Government to adjust the licence and the charter to make sure that in future the BBC is no longer the judge, the jury and sometimes the gaoler in its own cause. It would stand in even greater reputation if it had an independent authority above it.
I want to support what the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, said. One thing I cannot accept is that we shall have a franchise to sell these companies off. It has happened before. It happened to one company in which I was interested. It is the person who can tell the tallest story and who has the longest purse who will win a franchise. That will not produce the balance of programmes we need. I know that it is tempting to say that this is a market economy. It is not. In the case of these programmes going into millions of homes we want to see high standards. I do not believe that we shall do any good by tearing up this mature plant, sacking the people, changing the whole thing and handing it over. If it is handed over I can think of a list of names that would be at the forefront. They are not short of money or of the desire for more power. That is why they may want control. Something that is proven and good may be adapted, but do not let us tear it up and open it to franchise.
I have one other criticism. I am unhappy about religious broadcasting. It is time that we came more into line with other countries and gave more liberty to our Christian and other Churches to do more television and broadcasting. Chapter VI. 10 says:
"programmes should omit all expression of the views and opinions of the persons providing the service on religious matters".
That is surprising. Chapter VI. 49 continues:
"The Government envisages that … bodies whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious … nature will be disqualified from holding any … licence".
If we are opening up the airwaves and a number of channels, surely it is a good time to do what every other country does. The Iron Curtain states and Britain are the only countries which restrict religious

889
broadcasting in this way. I hope that we shall have the Churches solidly behind us in saying, particularly in relation to local broadcasting and radio because it is a cheaper medium, why should not the Churches either take a minority or a majority stake in some of the local broadcastng stations and put out a Christian, a Jewish or a Moslem programme if that is what the people want?
I do not believe that we are right to be the only country in the free world so far as I can trace that sticks to these old and rigorous controls. Just as we in this House forced on the government of the day, with help from all parts of it, the words "primarily Christian" for our religious education I cannot see why we should go on inhibiting the Churches from taking an interest in the channels as they expand.
Those are my thoughts, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having spoken for 16 minutes when I had planned to do so for only 12.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said. He mentioned some challenging and fresh points in the debate. When the legislative stage of these proposals comes forward, and if he speaks with the same tone and the same mind, I feel sure that I shall be sharing the Lobby with him particularly in relation to franchising.
I was pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, say in his opening remarks that the opportunity for debate and reflection on the Government's plans for broadcasting in the 1990s is welcomed. He welcomed the debate because it would give him and Members of the Government time to reflect on matters raised here and would indicate some ways in which constructive change could he made. I agree that it is important that during this period before the proposed legislation all those directly interested in broadcasting should make known their views to the Government. There is every reason to believe that the BBC and the ITV companies will play a constructive part in the forthcoming general public debate.
I understand that the broadcasting organisations will provide background information and relevant facts which should enable Parliament and the Government to reach reasoned and practical decisions in order to set the pattern for British broadcasting in the 21st century.
While the White Paper has been widely welcomed, there are legitimate and wide-ranging fears about many of the Government's proposals. Some have already been mentioned in the debate. Every effort should be made to challenge and constructively change the Government's proposals, which give rise to the grave doubts publicly expressed by concerned citizens and experienced broadcasters.
In her opening speech my noble friend Lady Birk mentioned the fact that at present the United Kingdom enjoys a mixture of commercial and public service television and radio broadcasting which is the envy of the world. That fact was also mentioned by other noble Lords. Whatever challenge may be made about it being the best, it is certainly the envy of the world.
890
One of the main issues confronting broadcasters is whether the standards can survive in the more open marketplace which is activated by the financial criteria promoted by this Conservative Government. That is the main issue which has been underlined by a number of speakers in the debate. Unless there is a huge rise in the population there can be little increase in the number of viewers and listeners. Nor is the private advertising revenue or other public moneys available. Surely we must conclude that standards must fall, as they have in the free-for-all American environment already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Willis.
If profit is to be the primary motive, as it must be, for companies which have invested heavily in order to obtain franchises, the public service element of broadcasting must find it difficult to survive. Quality programmes, whether drama or documentary, cost big money, while game shows and similar productions are much cheaper. Therefore it is inevitable that standards will decline. It is difficult to see how under such circumstances the proposed regulatory body with a light touch can effectively stand up to the pressures to lower standards in order to preserve the financial interests of the market.
I readily accept the fact that, because of technological, international and other developments, change is inevitable. However, I consider it vital that Parliament should ensure that changes are not made at the whim and in the interests of the marketplace. The Government should give a guarantee to viewers and listeners that the essential high qualities of British broadcasting will be upheld and enhanced. Such an undertaking is not contained in the White Paper.
I should have welcomed more detail in the noble Earl's speech about the proposed arrangements and mechanism for monitoring television and radio programmes, especially in view of the plethora of proposed new broadcasting channels and transmission arrangements. I have experience of the machinery required to monitor the quality control necessary for the present broadcasting channels. It is a terrific job but we find that we are at loggerheads with many members of the public. Indeed, private organisations have sprung up to take over the role. I should like to see more indication that the monitoring machinery and its organisation are being approached seriously. Perhaps it will be given during the various stages of the Bill or perhaps the Minister will give an undertaking this evening.
I should also have been pleased to hear more about broadcasting in the regions. Each region has its own outlook and needs. It is in the main regions of the United Kingdom that the character, culture and quality of British broadcasting excels. I feel sure that the proposals for Channel 4 and for broadcasting in Wales will require major rethinking. However, that is a controversial issue and it may be that future legislation will make it clear.
Having mentioned the regions, I must mention Northern Ireland. There the White Paper has generated a fair amount of public discussion about the future for broadcasting. That is to be expected because the Province has one of the highest ratios, if

891
not the highest, of viewers and listeners in the United Kingdom. There are many reasons and explanations for the acute appreciation and awareness of broadcasting in the Province by the BBC (Northern Ireland) and Ulster Television. Both those organisations have pioneered methods, ideas and production techniques which have been adopted by broadcasters throughout the United Kingdom. That interest and appreciation may be more apparent when one notes the numbers of Northern Irish people who hold prime positions at all levels of broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
In addition to the actual programme content of news and documentaries, the quality of educational, religious and sports programmes and the cultural and entertainment broadcasting, in Northern Ireland a close link has been developed between the broadcasting organisations and the community. It is important to mention that. Broadcasting cannot exist in a vacuum. There are numerous consultative and advisory bodies associated with Ulster Television, BBC (Northern Ireland) and Northern Ireland radio units. I doubt whether the same kind of dynamic viewer-and-listener relationship can be fostered or obtained through the proposed marketplace philosophy now being stipulated in the White Paper by the Government. However, when the proposed legislation is tabled we shall have an opportunity to deal in detail with the issues of regionalism, monitoring, the important matter of engineering, particularly in respect of the regions, and the quality and standards for the making of good broadcasting.
I am sure that the noble Earl will do his best to focus the attention of his colleagues on the need for constructive change in broadcasting for the good of all.
7.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I must disclose an interest, though not pecuniary, in the development of broadcasting. I do not have the experience and I have never had the responsibility that many Members of your Lordships' House have exercised in the BBC or independent companies. I am a kind of invisible microbe in the bottomless pit. However, for some years I was a member of the BBC's religious broadcasting department. For a time I served as a member, latterly chairman, of the Central Religious Advisory Committee for the BBC and the IBA.
As I read the White Paper, I was most forcefully struck by the enormous advances in technology. These may allow for six domestic television channels in this country; developments through medium and lower-powered satellites; direct broadcasting by satellites; five channels allocated to the United Kingdom with possibly more still to come; cable television; and the growth of interactive services.
This is a very big technological change. Yet some of us have memories of the debate in 1984 when the legislation for cable was enacted. One recalls the sense of urgency expressed at that time over the need to provide entertainment-led cable services. In fact
892
cable has taken a considerable time to get off the ground. I am inclined to wonder how sudden and dramatic the introduction of the new domestic channels will be or needs to be. Is it not more likely, and certainly more desirable, that there should be a steady, progressive increase of new facilities and channels in the 1990s—an evolutionary process just as BBC 2 and Channel 4 evolved in the past; an evolutionary process which could be accompanied by a phased and more gradual adaptation of the regulating bodies to the new situation?
The White Paper's philosophy of the market place, the encouragement of entrepreneurs and minimum regulations marks a too sudden break from what we already have. It places the valued concept of public service broadcasting, which we have enjoyed for many years from ITV and for much longer from the BBC, at far too great a risk. I have heard it suggested that the new channels may take up only between 10 or 20 per cent. of the viewing audience. If that be the case, why is there such a hurry to dismantle a regulatory system of proven worth? For the logic of what is now proposed—more competition for advertising and audiences—means the selling of space at lower rates and in consequence less money available for quality programme-making. Already one significant group involved in independent television production has stated that the auction of contracts to the highest bidder places a severe constraint on the ability of the franchise holder to produce high quality programmes. We have heard many reservations today about the wisdom of auctioning those franchises to the highest bidder.
Of course, television for most people is rightly a source of entertainment and a means of relaxation. That will always be primary. However, the achievement of public service broadcasting has been quality programmes with good scheduling. The combination is important—quality programmes and good scheduling. In that way it has opened up for a mass audience a wide range of experience and enjoyment especially in drama, documentaries and the arts.
To my mind the thrust of the new proposals goes all out to maximise audiences—audiences with money to spend to satisfy the advertisers. The ITC will have no responsibility for scheduling as does the IBA at present. We have already been warned by the programme controllers at Thames Television and London Weekend that increased competition means the likely demise of children's programmes, arts programmes and religious programmes as well as current affairs. Therefore, I do not believe that it is sufficient for the White Paper to say that quality programmes will be available, although at a cost, for the specially targeted audience. Public service broadcasting has provided quality programmes to a wide audience as a right—not by imposing charges for their quality and not by demanding that viewers should subscribe.
Of course, there are proposals in the White Paper which I welcome. I welcome the Broadcasting Standards Council's role in drawing up a code on the portrayal of sex and violence and on standards of taste and decency and its monitoring role. I welcome the Government's decision to bring broadcasting

893
within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act because obscenity and violence demean the human spirit. Yet, it must be said, there is another danger to which I believe the White Paper is apparently blind; that is, the danger of triviality—the manufacture of cheap programmes that make few or no demands on the viewer. It is the provision of pap. A diet of triviality can be numbing to the mind and spirit.
I should like to say a few words about religious programmes on television. Last month the IBA published a substantial survey called "God Watching" on religion, viewers and television. Despite the growth of secularisation in the past 20 years it seems significant that 62 per cent. of the population watch religious programming once a month. Popular programmes like "Highway" and "Songs of Praise", which are well scheduled, attract audiences of 7 to 8 million each and are much appreciated. The audience for Sunday morning worship on BBC and ITV is over 1 million. I find it most interesting that the survey shows that audiences for the networked weekly religious programmes match the audiences for the flagship current affairs programmes. It is so often said that religious broadcasting is deaf to ratings or audience appreciation. However, I believe that it is highly significant that one can have as substantial and appreciative an audience for those weekly networked religious programmes as can be gained for the flagship current affairs programmes.
For the health of society it is important that reflective and demanding programmes on the arts, religion and current affairs should remain as part of the general public discourse. I believe that it would be deplorable if religious programmes or the others were shunted away into a ghetto for subscribing enthusiasts. They need to be part of general programming. Experience in France, the USA and Canada has shown that with deregulation religious programmes are relegated to the margins. They cease to be part of general public viewing. So it was with some dismay, but sadly with no great surprise, that I read the answer given in another place last week by the Minister of State at the Home Office that applicants for Channel 3 franchises will not have to make commitments about broadcasting religious programmes.
I hope very much that in the light of the research to which I have just pointed, as well as for the sake of the general public discourse in which religion needs to take part and of their own advocacy of traditional values, the Government will look again at that particular matter when they come to develop their fuller programmes.
7.38 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest in that for 24 years I have been a director of Tyne-Tees Television. Therefore, I speak with the benefits of both considerable experience and prejudice. I believe that we all give a general welcome to the way in which the White Paper has grasped the nettles of the future and look forward to what may happen. At this stage I should like to give an even warmer welcome to the very wise appointment of Mr. George Russell as chairman of the IBA and ITC. I
894
am sure that he will be an excellent choice in that post. However, like many others who have already spoken, I should like to refer to the auctioning of franchises which has given the ITV industry considerable concern.
I can see the argument for the principle of auction. It may be the only way to decide on what is the real value, although I still believe that it is more appropriate to the Mappa Mundi than to an ITV franchise. That was a recommendation of the Peacock Committee, although not a unanimous one. I believe that the dangers of relying solely on that process are what is worrying everybody, especially as the award could be for a considerable time.
I refer to these dangers as I see them. First is the danger that regional TV will be forced out by big money. This country has a splendid record of good regional programming. There are fears about the quality of programming, as have been expressed many times in this debate and outside this House. I believe that there should also be fears about the quality and staying power about the money which might be offered and the track record of those who might bid. That, again, has already been referred to, but it is tremendously important. How can we be sure that a successful bidder will not be immediately taken over, the day after, by a predator? What safeguards are there against the TV barons, about which my noble friend Lord Buxton made our flesh creep?
I come from the North-East. Our staple diet of brown ale has been, or is likely to be, taken over by the Australians. Our water has been sold to the French. Our last shipyard closed this week and there is a threat over the armaments industry at Vickers. Therefore, I hope that we will fight to retain our regional TV if that is all that is left. There must be built-in safeguards to that effect.
I know that in paragraph 6.11 there is a regional commitment, but if refers only to regional programmes. So far as that goes, it is good enough; but in my view it is equally, or even more important that ownership of the TV stations remains in regional hands which will represent a total commitment to the regions and all that goes with it. If the philosophy—which it is—of this Government is to make the regions more responsible and self-reliant, then the threat of losing regional TV seems to be undermining that policy already.
Another fear is that there is a desire to maximise revenue and to tax the TV industry too highly. The industry has laid a great many golden eggs over a great many years and, so far as I know, they have all been free of salmonella. The Government will take too much if they accept the highest tender and then add a levy. It is a real danger that we must watch. It is true that the remark of the late Lord Thomson of Fleet—whether or not he actually said it is irrelevant; it has done the damage—that the "licence to print money" could be said to be the most devastatingly accurate phrase of only five words to hit any industry. It has justified, and perhaps still does justify, high levels of taxation, levies, and so on, on ITV. I believe that they are higher than on any other industry. If the levy was justified—perhaps it was—in a monopoly situation, is it still justified with the dilution of the monopoly that extra channels will bring?

895
If auctioning franchises is to be adopted, why is it necessary totally to ignore the Peacock recommendation and say that the highest bid must be accepted? Taking the highest bid, whatever it may be, will be the greatest threat to the survival of the regional and smaller TV stations. The ability to accept a lower bid, as recommended by Peacock, is absolutely vital to the powers of the new ITC. Without it, and with the absence of any power to prevent takeovers, will the ITC have any power in practice? I wonder.
It might be further suggested that the existing contractors should have a right to ask their shareholders to match the highest tenders submitted before a decision is made. If I suggested that I would be accused of special pleading, and I would have to plead guilty; though I do not myself expect to be involved in any way with the new contracts. However, it is an option which might be worth considering if continuity of programming is of value. Is there not good reason to consider the sitting tenant? There would be good reason if we were debating council house tenancies and where a large discount would be available.
It is, of course, all meaningless unless we have some idea of the number of regions and the boundaries between them which will apply in the future. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that the ITC would decide on the matter. I submit that it would be much better if that were to be laid down by Parliament so that we know where we are. Tremendous problems are involved. There is much technology about the strength of transmitters, and so on. But will there still be 16 regional companies, or will overlap to some extent continue to bedevil ITV as it has done in the past?
As an example of what can happen, I refer to our company of Tyne-Tees. At one stage on granting the franchise we were told to get into bed with Yorkshire TV and create a holding company, which we did. We made an omelette out of two eggs, called Trident. It worked quite well. For the next franchise we were told to unscramble the omelette and make two eggs again, which we did. Your Lordships will know that that is much more difficult, but it has been done successfully. Let us have an end to this nonsense and have clarified, once and for all, areas which we, or someone, can serve.
What will stop the larger companies from swallowing the smaller ones with takeover bids if one contractor can own two stations or two franchises? Do the Government see the very small areas like Border TV or Channel as being viable in the next decade? It would be useful to have that information. Should the 16 become eight there is again a serious threat to regional TV, which is my main worry.
I am sorry if I have been difficult or awkward, but I have endeavoured to be constructive in expressing some of the worries of the ITV industry. I believe that our television is as good as that anywhere in the world, as has already been said, though no doubt there are, and will continue to be, a few well-publicised awful exceptions. We must preserve the best of the old and build on it if possible. The regional
896
nature of ITV appears to be one of the best things we have created.
I can remember the start of ITV, when popular programmes produced massive audiences and higher revenues. That led one TV executive to keep a model of the battleship "Potempkin" on his desk. It is to remind us, he said, of what dreadful things can happen when the ratings take command.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat and the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, my experience has been as director of a regional independent television company. Listening to my two friends in this industry I could not help feeling that they were perhaps unduly alarmist about the prospect of losing their franchises. At one stage I bid for a television franchise. Unfortunately I was not successful and I subsequently joined the successful bidder.
I should remind the noble Viscount and the noble Lord of the process that presently takes place when applying for a new franchise or one of the existing franchises. First you have to describe your programme philosophy and what you intend to do with the station. Secondly, you have to demonstrate that you have the personnel to run the station. Thirdly, you have to show that you have the cash to finance the station.
Those aspects are examined by the IBA, and presumably that will be done by the new authority. However, for companies described this afternoon, like Tyne-Tees and Anglia, one of the critical factors will be their record in carrying out the responsibilities of an independent company. We have the assurance this afternoon from the Minister that commitment to the quality of the programmes will be an important item and that the highest bidder will not necessarily be selected when bids for a new franchise are examined. I should like to have further assurance from the Minister on that point; that the quality, content and balance of the contractors' programmes and the philosphy will be weighed up before any allocation of a franchise is made.
I should like further assurance because it is easy to produce "glossies" about what one intends to do with a television station. Applicants are all experts in the field of communication. Those people are in the television business and it is their job. They can produce prospectuses that are convincing, and I should therefore welcome assurances from the Minister on the kind of monitoring process—
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. Did I understand the noble Lord to say that my noble friend Lord Ferrers had stated that the highest bid did not have to be accepted?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I understand from the whole tenor of the Minister's speech that the highest bid is not necessarily the final criterion and that the record of the proposed contractors and the quality of the programmes will be assessed.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I think the White Paper says that the highest bid will stand.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I received the impression from the Minister that that statement was qualified. I am sure that he does not intend that the process will be simply that the bids will be submitted, the envelopes opened, and that the highest bid will get the franchise. I think the Minister assured us that there will be a much more exhaustive examining process. Perhaps he can confirm that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Lord out of any misery into which he may be projecting himself involuntarily. The position is that there will be several criteria for standards and quality standards which must be gone through. Having gone through the standards of quality, the prospective licensee puts forward his proposals for content. When those proposals are acceptable to the commission, those who are successful with that application will put in their bids. The highest bid will then be accepted.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, that is the position as I understood it. I very much appreciate the Minister's clear definition of how this process will be carried out so that very strict obligations will be put on the bidders as regards programme content, balance and responsibility. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister of the point that I was going to make; namely, that it is easy to produce promises. We should like assurances as regards the monitoring of the performance of companies that secure the licence on the basis of these submissions. I believe that to be very important because it is easy to produce some kind of prospectus that is appealing. What is important is the performance.
I say to both noble Lords who have spoken in connection with their experience of local television that they are afraid that they may lose their franchise. I can tell noble Lords from my experience as a director of an independent television company that nothing sharpens the obligation of a company to observe quality programme content than the fact that it might lose its licence. I am opposed to a too-cosy relationship that assumes that an independent television company can just carry on indefinitely. Sitting on the board of an independent television company I recognise that to apply to renew the licence is a very important discipline upon the board and the programme-makers.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, on the question that the noble Lord raised about the quality requirements, I believe that he should be made aware that in the White Paper at paragraph 6.11 where it refers to the protection requirements, it states specifically that it proposes,
"that Channel 3 should be subject to the following positive policy programme requirements".
They are not and they need not be as extensive as those that are now governing ITV. So they are not as strong as the noble Lord appears to believe they are.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I was saying, and I hope I am correct in this, that promised continuity of franchises is not always a good thing. It is an important discipline to companies that they have to
898
live up to their best obligations. Their obligations are spelled out in the hid which they make prior to the consideration of the financial features. However, that was not the main thrust of what I wish to say this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the geographical distribution will be decided by the ITA. I was not quite sure what that meant and perhaps the noble Earl can elucidate exactly what he meant.
Like noble Lords who have spoken in connection with regional television, there are great dangers in the White Paper in the increased centralisation of television and broadcasting generally. There are clear indications in the White Paper that many of the new services will he nationally based and without regional variation. I see in the White Paper a steady increase in centralisation. The proposed Channel 5, the satellite services, and the suggested separation of night hours from the existing ITV companies into separate franchises are all likely to be centralised channels. Similarly it appears that reception of the satellite services will be poorer and more expensive in the northern parts of Britain. That is all the more reason to ensure that ITV's regional structure and obligation is not weakened by excessive cost burdens and taxation.
I wish also to say something about the proposals as regards transmission. It is proposed that the transmission system be clarified and that there should be no cross-subsidisation such as enables independent television to reach the remotest corners of the country. Paradoxically, the largest and richest area (namely, London) requires the smallest number of transmitters. The distant parts of the country need several times that number in order to carry their broadcasts. Nothing in the White Paper indicates that arrangements will be made for this kind of cross-subsidisation which permits the regional companies to undertake these obligations in the future.

I now turn to the question of cross-media ownership. This is a matter that gives us some concern. The proposals on cross-media ownership need close examination. Perhaps we can have some assurance in this connection. It appears that a national newspaper group will be free to bid for or take over any regional company including, for example, Scottish or Tyne-Tees television. This is surely an undesirable state of affairs. There has been, and there should continue to be, clear separation between the control of newspapers and that of television stations. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who owned 55 per cent. of Scottish television at one stage—the notorious licence to print money—was commanded by the IBA under the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, to reduce his ownership of shares to 25 per cent. I believe it is right that that should be so.
I wish to say a few words about cable network companies because little has been said about them in this debate. One of the surprising things about this debate is that while many of us receive advice from all interested in this field, the only group that did not send me a briefing, despite the fact that my daughter is a programme controller of a cable company, was the cable network companies. The White Paper proposes separating the retailing of the programme channels on cable network from the construction and

899
operation of the network itself. This is like hiving-off British Rail to run the railways while someone else runs the trains. I believe that the service of cable television is so integrated in the provision of the service and the retailing of the programmes, that there are grave doubts as to whether these should be separated in that way. I commend to the Minister that this matter be looked at. After all, cable television is an infant system and there is very little experience in this area. There is a certain reluctance to invest in it. If one is to develop cable television one should not be putting obstacles of this kind in the way.
The total investment required to build the present cable franchises covering 6 million homes is more than £2 billion. It is more than the capitalisation of the ITV system. To cable up to 80 per cent. of the country will cost £5 billion. If investment is to be attracted—it is essentially long-term investment in this area—we must see that it is not to be impeded by some of the difficulties that are involved in the White Paper.
The rationale for a levy on Channel 3 appears to be based on broadcasters making use of a national resource, the frequency spectrum. But cable makes no such demands and a levy on the cable companies can hardly be justified at this infant stage. It has been mentioned in the debate as to how one can control the programmes that are coming into the country. The White Paper proposes that all satellite channels distributed on cable, including those from abroad, should have to have impartial news coverage. That appears to preclude cabling news coverage from the United States or the USSR, which might be regarded as certainly not impartial. I wonder whether that is taken note of and whether some amendment will be introduced to take care of that point.
Like everyone else who has spoken in the debate, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I am afraid of people who are completely dogmatic on the future of television. It is a changing scene all the time. Although I opposed commercial television at the outset, it has turned out to be a beneficial system alongside the BBC. I hope that the House will look at the proposals with not too dogmatic a view.
8 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I do not wish at this stage of the evening to waste the time of the House by adding to the general threnody on the hatchet job that is being done on the IBA, on the almost certain disappearance of the ITV companies and on—I think this is the saddest point of all—the absence of control of scheduling. It is almost two years to the day since your Lordships debated the Peacock Report. On that occasion I spoke about radio, and I want to say a few words about radio this evening. However, before doing so I should like to say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has just said about cable and the beginnings of the delivery of the cable service.
I was not absolutely certain about the proposal on cable television in paragraph 6.36 of the White Paper. In that paragraph we were reminded that the Cable
900
and Broadcasting Act 1984 gave broadcast cable operators a local monopoly in both the delivery and the retailing of services—that is to say, both in digging the holes in the road and putting in the cables and in offering the content of the channels to viewers and receiving money from advertising or subscription. The reason for the integration was there stated as the enormous investment that was required in laying the cables. Now the Government propose an almost entirely segregated service and to separate delivery from retailing. They propose that a levy should be imposed.
I find myself unable to understand how things have changed so radically since 1984. An enormous investment has still to be made in the delivery of broad-band cable, amounting to millions of pounds. I cannot see how any company can be expected to face this investment, still less to pay a levy, with no control over and no interest in the retailing of the product. It would be rather like asking Esso or BP to build oil rigs in the North Sea and provide the pipes but then forbidding them to have anything to do with the sale of petrol at the pump. I should be glad to have an assurance that the Government will think again about the separation of functions.
I should like to turn briefly to radio. The Government's approach to radio was revealed first in the Green Paper of 1987, and much of their current thinking is now embodied in the White Paper. For my part I greatly welcome the peeling off of radio from television. I have argued before, and still maintain, that radio is intrinsically important and must not be left lying in the shadow of its somewhat smarter younger sister, television. The introduction of independent local radio has been a great achievement. As a matter of fact, I believe that it was the former director of radio at the IBA who first, perhaps unwisely, gave currency in a newspaper article to the phrase, which has appeared almost embarrassingly frequently in the White Paper, "a lighter touch".
Independent national radio is greatly to be welcomed. It is a logical and natural addition to the local stations, which are entertaining and useful to a wide cross-section of the community. It is, however, a matter of regret that INR is being offered two left over medium wave frequencies from BBC Radio 1 and Radio 3. As one who has in recent years had appalling problems in hearing Radio 3, especially in the evenings, I wish that better medium wave frequencies could be found, though it is some consolation that a fresh VHF channel is to be offered. But that is not a complete solution, especially for those many people who want to listen to INR in the car while driving. It is difficult to get satisfactory VHF reception in a car. In any case I should like to suggest that the Government rethink the allocation of frequencies to the new independent national radio.
I should like to make a more radical point. Two years ago I said—and others said it too—that it would be sensible and an economic use of resources if the BBC gave up radio altogether. At that time about 33 per cent. of television licence income was spent on radio. We have heard this evening that the figure is now down to about 25 per cent. Judging by the BBC's accounts for 1987–88, the figure is at least

901
that and will probably remain so. We learn from the White Paper that the television licence is gradually to be phased out—at least this is part of the thinking. Bearing that in mind, it seems that it would increasingly make sense for the new radio authority to take over all radio—that is, for all radio to be independent, and funded by advertisements or by sponsorship, with a plurality of both national and local channels. It is important in our policy decisions not to be too much moved by our natural tendency to rest with what we have. We must not go to our graves defending Radio 4 as we have known and loved it.
The White Paper itself, though it still deploys the old fashioned and not very useful terminology of "public service broadcasting"—we have heard a good deal about public service broadcasting this evening —is moving towards replacing that concept with the different concept of consumer protection. The notion of public service broadcasting never served to distinguish BBC local radio from ILR. Both serve the public. Still less will that concept make any useful distinction between differently funded national channels. It may be that consumer protection, combined with the demand that the new national channels shall provide diversity, are the concepts that we need to ensure quality radio in the future. We may be able to abandon the old notion of the public service. Public service will be fully looked after by consumer protection and by diversity.
The notion of diversity, the demand that the channels should not be confined to a single uniform format, may in the future be a powerful weapon in the battle for broadcasting standards. But if we believe that—and I do—we must trust the public to want true diversity—not a simple variety of end-on music or chat shows but a variety that includes programmes both informative and educative. People must be trusted to want at least some programmes long enough for serious discussion, some plays that can explore a scene in depth and some current affairs programmes with news but discussion and information as well.
Many people enjoy those things: indeed, we all enjoy them, so we must trust that this will be included in the diversity of programming which will be wanted on radio. Because of the particular situations which people are in when they listen to the radio, it seems certain to me that we can have that trust. People want to be made to think by radio and want to be talked to as well as having music to listen to. Therefore I believe that diversity laid on the new national services as their duty and diversity in local programming, combined with consumer protection, will be enough to ensure quality. In the case of radio at any rate, which I think has many considerations going for it which are different from those we have to bear in mind in relation to television, I believe that that will be enough.
The White Paper, so far as it concerns radio, is on the whole both hopeful and imaginative, in my view. The most hopeful aspect of it is that there is still a lot of thinking to be done, as the paper itself acknowledges. So I end by urging those responsible for the provision and administration of radio to follow the example of both the Green Paper and the White Paper and to look ahead constructively and
902
with faith in the future of radio as a medium with its own utility, with its own standards and, in short, with a life of its own.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it seems that the noble Lord has not read the speakers' list correctly. I can understand the noble Lord being eager to get on with the job. After five and a quarter hours of talk and 20 speakers, I suppose that all that needs to be said has been said in terms of the advice that we give to my noble friend. I have been discarding points I had in mind which I thought were special because they have all been made, and made reasonably effectively.
I believe that we should congratulate the Government and my noble friend on the procedure they are adopting. As already made clear, the White Paper has been presented long before it can ever be turned into a statute in order to obtain other people's opinions and to share thoughts. This means, perhaps almost for the first time in a long time, we shall have Parliament expressing a view before the Bill itself has actually been committed to print. We have a responsibility therefore on this occasion, rather more so than on others, not to make Second Reading speeches of the type made, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I do not think that that was in keeping with the intention of the debate. The noble Lord is entitled to his point of view; he is entitled to be forceful in presenting it. But to make a Second Reading speech at this stage, before we actually have a Bill which means something, was a little off beam. The best example was set by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans who made his points very effectively while recognising that there was time for people to take account of what he was saying, as he hoped that they would.
Everything that I wanted to say having been said, it is only sensible that I should sit down. Indeed I shall do so within a very short time. I should like to reach a situation—I am asking my noble friend now to talk to his noble friend—where, in a debate of the same significance as this one, my name appears above the salt in the list instead of below. The only time I have had the good fortune to be in that position is when I have brought in my own private Bills. After 15 years one would like to feel that on the odd occasion one is among the early and not the late-comers in terms of making a contribution. If my noble friend takes advice—I know he means to—he will see to it that it is considered within the department.
I think my noble friend can take it fairly clearly that everyone is satisfied with the situation regarding the BBC. I believe everyone recognises that the BBC has its charter which takes it to 1996. It has a new team in charge, and it will have had the warning of what is entailed in the White Paper regarding ITV. It could well be that in the next eight years, as a consequence of knowing that it will have to justify itself when the charter comes to an end, that we may even get a better BBC.
I do not agree—it is very rarely that we disagree—with the noble Lord, Lord Willis. However, I hope that my noble friend will not take

903
the noble Lord's advice that the BBC should consider index-linking the fee. Those who lived through 1970—the whole of that period—will know the trouble that you can get into as a nation when you index-link anything in these days when inflation is as unstable as it can be.
So the BBC can be certain of being able to continue in its independent and very valuable way. I think that everyone agrees with that. Therefore, I do not think that my noble friend will have much problem in that respect when it comes to the actual presentation of the Bill giving effect to what is envisaged in the White Paper. But where he will have trouble, unless he pays heed, as my noble friend Lord Buxton pointed out, is the effect on the contribution in the meantime from the ITV companies and the question of whether or not we are being fair.
When we talk about British television being the best in the world—indeed, in no other country have I been as impressed as I am with the quality and general scope of British TV—we ought to remember that the ITV companies have contributed to that great reputation. It is not only the BBC that has made the world think that we are reasonably good at this; it is also the result of the contribution made as much by the ITV companies, and in many ways more so.
It is generally admitted that if the commercial companies had not come into being the BBC would not have had the extra jolt that caused it to improve its general presentation. If we say that we have attained a position of quality that we can be proud of and if we say that we recognise that and that therefore we shall not interfere with the BBC, I feel—my noble friend put it very clearly—that we must be equally fair to the ITV companies.
Those companies are in the position of a sitting tenant. They are there, they built something from nothing. Whatever the wonderful financial results some of them were supposed to have enjoyed at certain stages, they took risks. There was a very real danger in the early days as to whether those risks would bring any rewards at all. That fact should not be forgotten. In relation to such a change as this, I believe we have a duty to be fair.
I recognise that we are going to have Channel 5 with all the extra outlets that will be involved. I do not object to new people coming in from scratch and having to make a bid. The best bid should be the one that has the priority, once you have checked on the general standards as far as you can. I do not mind the Channel 5 extras having to go through the hoop of an auction and making their bid. But we should consider treating the existing ITV companies differently. If they do not come up to the standard we think that they should, and we want something better, let them be dismissed. We have done that in the past. We should not be setting a precedent. We should be able to evaluate the figure that should be paid for the extensions to the franchises in the way someone established the share values of British Steel and BP when they were privatised. We should recognise that the existing ITV companies are sitting tenants and that they are entitled to consideration for what they have done in the past in the same way as the BBC
904
is being dealt with. We should set the figure at that arrived at by advisers who can come to sensible conclusions after investigation.
I have heard every speech in the debate and one point which has come out clearly, and with which I agree strongly, is that the system will not work if we try to join the highest bid to a theoretical standard that will be laid down. That will work only if it is possible to calculate the extra money up to a certain percentage. When bids have been made, it is difficult to justify rejecting the highest, especially when the people who make that high bid give all the undertakings in the world that are wanted when the franchise is being issued. They will give the undertakings, truly believing that they will carry them out.
We have had many examples of where great names—leading actors and industrialists who have earned great reputations—were on the boards of some of the ITV companies. As soon as the franchise is granted, in some mystical way they are no longer on the board, and the companies are taken over by someone who is almost unknown. That will happen again if the Bill is based on the words that appear in the White Paper.
I beg my noble friend to use all his influence—his influence is great—within the deparment to see that when the Bill is prepared and we know what is likely to be in the statute, fair consideration is given to the legitimate demands of the people who helped to build the television reputation of which we are so proud today.
As I said, all the other points have been made. We shall have many opportunities to reinforce those about which we feel strongly. I urge the Government to be fair to the existing ITV companies when the new franchises are given. That is the point that I should especially like to impress upon my noble friend when he takes back the message from this short debate.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, after two minutes of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, wondered whether it was wise to go on. Those who read what he said will have to draw their own conclusions. He made an excellent Second Reading speech in a debate in which we do not have a Bill before us, and I congratulate him on that.
I wish to begin by declaring an interest in that I have an association with ACTT (the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians). I was somewhat disappointed to hear the gratuitous remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Arran, when he referred to the state of industrial relations in the television industry and used pejorative words such as "corruption" and "extortion". In his absence, I say that if he is referring to the wages structure in the industry he should recognise that it takes two to tango. Agreements are the product of negotiations. They are nothing more and they are nothing less.
I wish to congratulate the Minister, as other noble Lords have done, on the fairness and balance with which he introduced the debate. He has a persuasive style. The long delay in presenting the White Paper, which is a year behind schedule and it is well over two

905
years since the Peacock Report, is a result of the incoherence in government broadcasting policy (with a dogmatic urge to impose market forces tempered by ignorance of the broadcasting industry). The document still bears the marks of ambivalent thinking between the residual public service concerns of the Home Office and the free market imperatives of the DTI (together with their outside "advisers").
We all know that the main thrust of the White Paper is a move from programme-led to market-led broadcasting by means of deregulation. That is totally unsurprising.
The White Paper represents a supremely unconvincing attempt to reconcile an emphatic boost for market forces with purely rhetorical assurances on choice and quality of programming. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, effectively mocked their effectiveness. The strategy has clearly been formulated with the interests of broadcasting consumers in mind. Unfortunately, those consumers are the advertising industry; in no sense whatsoever did the White Paper seriously reflect or advance viewers' interests.
Commercial rather than programming criteria will be overwhelmingly predominant in broadcasting if the Government strategy is implemented. In that sense the White Paper does not seek just to devise means of introducing new media and new broadcasting outlets, which in themselves would be welcome; it consciously seeks to uproot and displace the broadcasting infrastructure which has given the United Kingdom one of its few genuine claims to he a world leader. Given the potential impact of the White Paper's proposals, it is remarkably lacking in serious economic analysis. It fails completely to address the issue of whether sufficient resources, especially advertising revenue, will be available to support the new free market in broadcasting. Without such an analysis the White Paper is reduced from being a blueprint for the future to a reckless gamble with one of the United Kingdom's few successful industries. That is inexcusable, and will be seen as such if the gamble is allowed to happen and to fail.
The White Paper already stands in contradiction in some important respects to the report earlier this year of the Conservative-dominated House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. It has already attracted criticism from European broadcasters in the European Institute for the Media, which expressed concern that the United Kingdom television system would be dismantled in response to short-sighted sectoral pressures. Neither of those bodies can be accused of self-interest, and the views expressed indicate the present depth of concern about the future of British broadcasting.
Much has already been said about the auctioning of franchises. That system will produce a number of problems. First, auctioning will put great financial pressure on ITV companies seeking to retain their franchises, especially given the inevitable competition from much larger major conglomerates which are currently without any public service obligations and which could afford to bid for franchises as loss leaders. ITV companies will
906
therefore seek to accumulate as much as possible from existing franchises.
In order to bid for future franchises they may begin to adopt "profit-maximising programming strategies." That was noted in the journal, Broadcast, of November. They will increase those programme types which make the greatest contribution to profits and reduce those which make the least contribution. Yorkshire, for example, has already moved to measure the profit performance of differing programme departments.
Given the lack of financial detail in the White Paper, there is as yet no realistic basis on which to estimate the size of the franchise bids required, although a figure of £300 million has been quoted for a franchise such as Thames. It is certain, however, that the auctioning system is wide open to abuse, with the possibility of collusion among supposedly rival bidders to carve up the ITV system between them; and the alternative tactic of unrealistically high bids designed to kill off the competition, with the option of selling out or defaulting even on minimum programme promises in mid-franchise. Whatever the exact form of the auction, it is certain to divert much needed resources to the Exchequer which otherwise could have been used for programming. The incentive for any potential franchise holder is to put maximum resources into the initial bid, and thereafter minimum resources into programming in order to recoup its investment. There is absolutely no guarantee in the White Paper that the auctioning process would be open to public scrutiny or subject to any adequate requirement on disclosure of information.
Let me encapsulate my views on the changes in the levy system. The current levy on profits is to be replaced by a levy on advertising revenue. The exact level of the levy will be announced when the new licences are advertised. The current system is an incentive to spend money up front on quality programming. A revenue-based levy is likely to have the opposite effect and to discourage high-budget programming.
The question of takeovers has already been referred to. The ITC will have no powers to block Stock Market takeovers of ITV companies in mid-franchise, although the new owners will supposedly have to satisfy the programming tests, (the quality threshold) and the owner regulations. In the past the IBA has been able to block proposed takeovers, for example Rank and Granada; Carlton and Thames.
The possibility of takeovers builds an additional degree of uncertainty into the system. It further undermines the credibility of commitments made by bidders for franchises who have the option of selling out in mid-franchise if business proves insufficiently lucrative.
Perhaps I may say a word about the publishing style franchises. A very significant proposal is that which allows franchise holders to contract-out all their programme-making and to operate on a commissioning basis like Channel 4. This is not compulsory but is offered as an option. It clearly subordinates programme-making (left to a very uncertain market) to commercial criteria. Such a

907
development, if it were to happen, is likely to lead to a very significant concentration of ownership in the independent sector, with a handful of major independents dominating the market and operating on a very different basis from the small production companies working within Channel 4's regulated market and distinctive programming remit.
Apart from the obvious implications of casualisation of the labour force and the loss of centres of production excellence, this proposal runs completely counter to the Government's own rhetoric of supporting regional television in ITV. If ITV in-house production in the regional centres is allowed to be run down, it may be replaced to a large extent by independents based not in the region itself but in London and the South-East. That is the harsh economic reality of the independent sector.
I do not intend to take up much more of your Lordships' time. I shall simply conclude with a word on radio. The problems for radio, in my view, will be immense. There will be inadequate revenue. There is little evidence to suggest that sufficient advertising revenue will be available to support a potentially vast extension of radio to any adequate level. In the White Paper I believe that two fundamental points emerge. Despite the rhetorical commitment to quality and a choice of programming, the proposals effectively dismantle the regulatory and financial structure which has so far guaranteed this, and which is recognised to have done so thoughout the world.
Beyond the dogmatic free market ideology and the obsession with new technology there is no serious economic analysis of the likely consequences of these proposals. What is offered is not a plan for the future but a gamble, with the entire UK broadcasting system at stake. I very much hope that the Government are still of a mind to listen to the views expressed not only in this House but from industry, not least from those people who work in the industry.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, with all the strength I can on the issue of religious broadcasting, as I have done on previous occasions. It seems to me, as one of the vice-presidents of the Christian Broadcasting Council, and to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, as well as members of our council, that it is incredible that this ban on religious advertising persists when it has been estimated that some 76 per cent. of the population of Britain claim to be Christian and that, for example, programmes such as "Songs of Praise", which I am sure that many noble Lords look at, have received an 85 per cent. appreciation.
As some noble Lords may recall, I raised this matter in a Starred Question on 8th July this year. The reply I received was that the ban on religious advertising contained in Schedule 2(8) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 was of long standing, that successive authoritative committees had continued to recommend its retention and that there were no plans to relax the ban. When I pointed out—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, when he referred to
908
this matter—that most of the Commonwealth and European countries had no such ban, I was told that relaxation of the ban would probably lead to a flood of undesirable programmes from such bodies as the Moonies and other sects. That may be so, but the countries concerned feel that the risk is well worth taking. It is probably only in the United States of America that such sects have made any significant headway.
To review the situation in rather more detail, I know that the French have laid down that television stations must broadcast religious programmes on Sunday mornings. Spain has just passed a law which does not restrict religious broadcasting in any way. By "broadcasting" I refer to both television and sound broadcasting. Italian broadcasting has been completely deregulated. As for the Commonwealth, the Australian Broadcasting Commission carries what could broadly be termed religious advertising. The Federal Republic of Germany does not restrict religious advertising in any way. New Zealand is currently redrawing its laws which ban advertising on Sunday. That ban extends to religious broadcasting generally, but most of the programmes are confined to Sunday. Surely we should consider in rather more detail the effect of this unrestricted arrangement in our own country. It seems to me unthinkable that we should persist in our stubborn attitude and forbid all such advertising.
Further, I warmly welcome the formation of the Broadcasting Standards Council under the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I also welcome the inclusion of broadcasting within the umbrella of the obscenity legislation. The appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has indeed come as an answer to the maiden's prayers of various organisations like CARE, the National Council for Christian Standards in Society, the National Family Council, the Conservative Family Campaign, and perhaps other bodies too. I am associated with all of those bodies. As many of your Lordships know, those bodies have been campaigning for a very long time in the fight against violence and sex on television. I shall not go into details here because I discussed this matter in our previous debate on broadcasting. I am quite prepared to admit that it is very difficult to pinpoint any particular programme as having an undesirable effect.
However, I think that most of us who listen to radio, and particularly those of us who watch television, would agree that some kind of body, such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, will head, is very desirable. I do not in any way share the view of various noble Lords who seem to feel that we do not need controls of this kind. I conclude by saying that I and many other noble Lords greatly look forward to the work which the council of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, will, we hope, be able to undertake.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before making the few brief remarks that I had intended to make this evening—I promise to be brief at this late hour—I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister for

909
missing his speech earlier this afternoon, and indeed to those other noble Lords whose speeches I did not hear. At this time of year my profession is particularly busy, and I was not able to be here until much after half past six.
Being one of the last speakers I anticipate that everything has been said, but I have the advantage of not having heard much of it. I hope that the Minister will take any repetitions that I may make as particularly forceful arguments in our debate this evening. With a few reservations, I welcome this White Paper. I am sure that its basic principle is correct, that consumers should be able to choose which television service they wish to enjoy, and that, as far as possible, the provision of those services should be determined by normal market forces.
I believe that the White Paper has correctly identified the kind of regulatory regime which will be appropriate for the television market of the 1990s. And I am delighted that the Government feel it is necessary to oblige the terrestrial independent channels to provide a diverse programme service, including news, current affairs and, on Channel 3, a strong regional service. I am also delighted that there will be restrictions on the use of non-EC material.
I also welcome the proposal to make independent television companies subject to the normal workings of the Stock Exchange, and to the disciplines that will flow from this change. I agree with the suggested rules on media ownership and hope that all the points included in the White Paper will eventually be included in the legislation. In short, I know that the independent television companies will welcome competition. I believe that both viewers and advertisers will benefit from most of the changes described in the White Paper.
However, I also believe that certain key proposals will seriously endanger the prospect of achieving the Government's basic objectives. The combination of putting the Channel 3 licences out to tender, the proposed progressive levy, and the separation of Channel 4 from Channel 3 will so damage the economic base of Channel 3 that the service it is able to provide will be fundamentally changed. The most likely result will be the effective restoration of the BBC monopoly, and the loss both of any serious alternative news service and of a meaningful regional programme service. I am assured that, had the White Paper proposals been in effect this year, the five major ITV companies, who provide most of the British-made programmes on ITV, would have had to reduce their expenditure on programmes by around £100 million, or nearly 25 per cent., in order to maintain their present profitability. A cutback of this kind would have reduced the appeal of ITV's service to the viewers, and enhanced the appeal of the BBC.
I believe this is what would happen in 1993 if the White Paper proposals on auction, levy and Channel 4 are implemented unchanged. The effect would be exacerbated by competition from the new channels. I hope that it is not the Government's intention effectively to restore the dominance of the BBC. To preserve Channel 3, as a well resourced rival to the BBC, two principles are required. First, the Government should take a moderate rather than
910
excessive amount of money from the channel through the levy and auction processes. Secondly, changes in ownership of the franchises should occur without destabilising the whole system.
The London Weekend Television proposal for licence renewal on the payment of an agreed fee to the Government, while allowing normal takeover of companies on the Stock Exchange, achieves both of these ideals. The White Paper has acknowledged the strength of this proposal by allowing licence renewal on this basis to take place in 1998. It is difficult to see why licence renewal might be satisfactory in 1998 but not in 1992. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether this proposal does not indeed make more sense, so that licence renewals could be implemented in 1992, thus abandoning the proposal to put the ITV franchises out to tender—here I agree, probably for the first time ever in this House, with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—and maintaining the present link between Channel 3 and Channel 4.
Finally, while declaring an interest in and a love of jazz, I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the IBA's present stated intention that any proposed new radio station in London will be limited to a 12 kilometre radius from the transmitting aerial. It is possible that the Minister feels that Capital Radio and LBC effectively fulfil the terms of the 1981 radio legislation, and that all additional stations are of secondary importance.
The effectiveness of any new station—I hope to be associated with the new proposed London Jazz Radio Station—would be severely limited when only half the population of London would be able to receive the signal. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with me that, while encouraging competition, the new opening up of the airwaves will also herald a new era when a wider range of musical preferences will become available and thus correct the present imbalance inherent in the 1981 Act.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, were it not for the presence of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, below my name on the Speakers' List, we would now be scraping at the very bottom of the bottomless pit of expertise in your Lordships' House, to which the noble Earl referred in his truly excellent opening speech.
The noble Earl put the proposals to us in the very best possible light. I wish to ask him at the outset whether his presence today, in charge of this debate as a Home Office Minister, and the fact that he told us that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary is very anxious to hear our views, entitles me to assume that the battle which has been raging between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry as regards which department should have control of broadcasting, has finally been won by the Home Office? If it has, I personally should be grateful to hear that news.
It would be both impossible and indeed inappropriate to endeavour to draw together all the strands which have run through this important and

911
very complex debate. I shall not attempt to do so, save to say that we have heard speech after speech today from noble Lords with vast experience and unequalled expertise in this field. Not one of those noble Lords has found the Government's proposals wholly acceptable. Indeed, most of those noble Lords expressed grave anxieties as to the likely consequences of the implementation of these proposals.
My principal concern is the likely effect of these proposals on the regions. That is a matter which has been referred to by many noble Lords, some of whom perhaps not entirely knowing what they meant by "regional broadcasting". However, I say at once that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made it utterly clear that he knew, as did the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa. It is about regionalism that I wish to talk and I shall return to it later.
First, I should like to say a few words about the Government's proposals in general. I agreed with every word of the speech of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter from the Front Bench here. I see no conflict in the fact that, although I agree with every word that he said, I also welcome much that is contained in the White Paper. But, like other noble Lords, I have some misgivings.
With regard to the BBC, I would wholly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I welcome the prospect, however remote, of somehow escaping from the licence fee system. I have always felt that the necessity for the BBC every few years to have to go cap in hand to the government of the day for an increase in the licence fee made it dangerously dependent upon the government in a way which I think undermines the purpose of the charter. So I would welcome a change. But a change to what—to subscription television? The technology is not yet sufficiently advanced to make that a reality. Experience with satellite television may take us further and show whether subscription can provide a proportion of the BBC's resources; but it cannot and should not provide the whole.
Before leaving the BBC, let me underline the importance I attach to radio. Here I endorse very much the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that radio is absolutely crucial. The noble Earl told us that that subject had been dealt with in another Green Paper; but let nobody think that because we are talking largely about television some of us do not regard radio and the radio service as absolutely vital to the nation and to the community. Let me just add this in regard to radio. If we are to have three national independent radio channels, it is absolutely essential that at least one, and probably two, of those new national channels should be based outside London: in other words. in the regions. To base them again in London I believe would be disastrous.
Perhaps I may just repeat a criticism in regard to radio of that great institution, the BBC. It is the most desperately overmetropolitanised organisation I have ever encountered. In an earlier debate I told your Lordships of an experience of mine. Many of you may have heard it, but I shall repeat it because I
912
think it is important. Many years ago when I was in another place I had occasion to complain about the arrangements which were being made and about the delay in opening the new regional BBC headquarters in Manchester. That was at the time when the BBC had regions, although they were later abolished.
I complained, and so did Mr. Alfred Morris, who was then the Member of Parliament for Wythenshawe. The then Postmaster-General, who I think was the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said that that was a matter for the BBC and that he would arrange for us to have a meeting. He did: and so what happened? I and Mr. Alfred Morris got on a train in Manchester with Mr. Bob Stead, the BBC's northern regional controller at the time. We travelled to London to go to the BBC's headquarters in Portland Place to have a meeting about its northern regional headquarters, an important place. Then we travelled back to Manchester. It had never occurred to anybody that people who were concerned about the regions actually lived in them.
I repeat that if we are to have this upheaval in broadcasting as a whole, I am rather sorry that the opportunity of lessening that overmetropolitanisation of the BBC has not been seized.
Turning now to other aspects of the White Paper, I also think that the auction over the franchises is an absurd proposal. It is not only undesirable but, as has been admirably illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, it is unworkable as well. I believe that it should be abandoned.
I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that more channels do not necessarily mean more choice. As he rightly said, in New York you have a choice between any one of 13 channels—13 old films, or perhaps 13 different quiz games. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that it is almost certain that there will not be sufficient advertising revenue available to support all these new channels which are envisaged in the White Paper; and of course if it does not support them, the consequences could be disastrous. I also have some doubt as to whether the necessary talent needed to support all these new channels actually exists. However, if it does, I believe it exists at the moment untapped in the regions and it is there that such talent will have to be found.
What under these proposals is going to happen to the regions? We have already heard that the White Paper's proposals, if adopted, would immediately render at least five of the present ITV companies economically unviable. Let us look at the regional companies, including Border. That is a company which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has praised very warmly, very frequently and very recently. It would disappear. So indeed would some of the other regional companies.
I have had a letter from my friend Mr. David Plowright, who is the chairman of Granada Television—a letter which has been sent to many noble Lords. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Mr. David Plowright actually lives in the Granada area, and always has done. In the same way, the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, as chairman of Anglia, lived in the Anglia area. It does not always happen, but it is

913
so in the case of Mr. Plowright, and he says this in his letter:
"The Government has indicated an intention to relax or remove the regulatory controls. Were this to be fully implemented, the inevitable result would be a downward spiral of programme standards as each channel strove to maximise its audience on the American pattern".
He goes on to say that regionalism would be an early victim.
I return now to the subject of regionalism. What do we mean by regional television? I suspect that some noble Lords when they talk about regional television are really talking about parochial television. They are assuming somehow that if something is happening in Bolton it is of desperate interest to the people who live in Wilmslow. It is of no more interest to them than if it were to be happening in Bournemouth or Bognor Regis. That is local broadcasting; not regional broadcasting. The whole object of regional television and regional broadcasting, is to give a regional flavour to universal themes, to look at national and international events through regional eyes—not just to have little local programmes that are interesting to people because they are about things that are happening in the next street.
The most menacing part of the proposals in the White Paper concerns the likely consequence for the regions. I say again that I have grave doubts as to whether sufficient advertising revenue will be available to support all these channels. However, I also believe that the only way of unearthing the talent necessary to maintain standards on all these channels is to provide sufficient opportunities in the regions. Why on earth should talented people in Newcastle, Merseyside or Manchester, if they want an opportunity to use their creative ability, have to move to London?
We do not wish to see the eclipse of the regional stations. In particular we do not want to see the eclipse of the contribution of the regional stations to the national network. That contribution is an immensely important one to the national network and there is no provision for its continuation under the proposals in the White Paper. The noble Earl has told us that the Home Secretary will listen and consider what we have said, and I certainly hope that he listens and considers and that he thinks again.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord because he too comes from Manchester and I share his views about regional broadcasting. I must congratulate the Government on the format of the White Paper—a beautiful printing job with colour too and in the spirit of the age they might easily have got Saatchi and Saatchi to defray the costs by selling advertising space in it or perhaps Philips or Sony to sponsor it. However, my congratulations are limited. Like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I find the arguments confused, though my imagery is rather different from his. He was talking about Britannia; I saw it as God vainly trying to reconcile himself with Mammon, if those terms are not too extreme to describe the Home Office and the DTI.
914
The revolution in broadcasting which it presages arouses both hopes and fears. The hopes are in the hearts of the entrepreneurs, if they have such tender organs, and in some of the Ministers of this Government. The punters, if I may so describe the viewers and listeners, are waiting to see what happens and waiting with unbated breath. The fears are in the broadcasters and all those consumers of broadcasting who write or think about broadcasting and its impact upon us as individuals and upon the quality of our society. The fears have been reflected in our debate today much more strongly than the hopes. Even the noble Lords on the other side of the House who spoke in favour of the White Paper did not boil over with enthusiasm and I think that all of them had some reservation to make. The Government see the revolution as affording the public more choice, but choice, if it is to mean anything, must mean not simply that there are more programmes to see and hear but that there are more programmes of first-class quality. Those of us who are fearful can see a possibility of the competition for audiences and revenue pulling down the best broadcasting and in fact diminishing real choice. As several speakers have already mentioned, only those of us who have sat before the screens in America with a remote control in hand, switching despairingly from channel to channel in the hope of catching something worth watching, know from experience that a multi-channel system can mean that there is less effective choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was as critical as other noble Lords on this side of the House, but I thought that he was unwilling to predict disaster because in the past many dire predictions about broadcasting have been happily belied. I pray that he is right on this occasion, for the Government are doing a minimum to protect broadcasting standards. By that I do not mean to imply that we are in for a new era of pornography, murder and mayhem. The firm and chaste hand of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, brandishing the newly forged Excalibur will certainly keep lust and sadism within bounds if not completely at bay.
What the Government are failing to protect is the high quality of British broadcasting. Indeed they are setting conditions which are likely to lead to lower standards that will provide the new entrants with the promise of easier profits. Of course the Government have a difficult problem. The technical revolution will not go away. We cannot turn our backs on it. The problem is how to steer the revolution and how to time it so that the good, existing system has a chance of keeping up its standards of quality. Indeed, the first question that the Government should have asked is: How in this new age of broadcasting do we maintain the quality of a system which admittedly has fewer channels than have some other countries yet which has more items of quality? How do we shelter it from the stormy blast?
The Government have not asked that question. They have asked how many more channels can we obtain and how quickly. The more there are, the merrier the cash tills will ring. What incentives can we offer to the newcomer—those whom my noble friend Lord Willis has happily called the "aerial invaders".

915
In his day John Reith was frank about the BBC's first miracle. It was achieved, he said, by the brute force of monopoly. Let us admit it, the BBC and Independent Television have achieved excellence by their quasi-monopoly, which it is now fashionable to call a duopoly. It is just 50 years this year since John Reith left the BBC. It was only a cottage industry that he left behind. Most of us in this Chamber were the beneficiaries of his Puritan resolution to provide the best. Like me, other noble Lords will have dim memories now of how we explored the foundations of music with Walford Davies or the ramifications of international affairs with Vernon Bartlett; or how we cultivated our gardens under the directions of Mr. Middleton. And we all listened to the Nine O'Clock News, copyright by Reuter, the Press Association, the Exchange Telegraph and the Central News.
Put to the test, the BBC has flourished remarkably in its competition with ITV. It has matched game show for game show, soap opera for soap opera and pop group for pop group. In order to justify a compulsory universal licence fee, it has had to provide a compulsive universal programme to cater for everyone all the time. Yet despite the razzmatazz something of the Reith tradition has survived generation after generation of broadcasters. Though its sins be scarlet, surely its large and unique virtues redeem the corporation. There seems to be a spirit guiding the BBC ethos, Peter Black has written, and the corporation does the right thing by tradition and by accident.
So the BBC has remained a cherished institution so highly regarded that we can joke about it. That is why the Government have resisted the temptation to wring its neck and throw it to the dogs. They agree with the Home Affairs Committee that the BBC is still and will remain for the foreseeable future the cornerstone of British broadcasting. I would rather describe it as the rock on which British broadcasting has been built. However, as it is called a cornerstone, I want to deal with it first, though the strains to be put upon it will not be nearly so severe as those put upon our current independent television.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, reminded the House, the Government expect the BBC to provide high quality programmes across the full range of public taste and interest including programmes of popular appeal, minority interest, education, information, cultural material, and so on. Nevertheless, we must regard the BBC as a threatened species. It can keep its licence system until the mid-1990s, though it will be reduced in value in real terms. Meanwhile, it must experiment with subscription television as a supplement to the diminished income from licence fees. In fact the Government look forward to the eventual replacement of the licence fee.
By what, my Lords? They do not tell us. By advertising? By sponsorship? Surely not by government subsidy. Certainly the BBC cannot live by voluntary subscriptions alone. Nor could any commercial system living by this means offer one quarter of what the BBC now gives us for £1.20 per family per week—the best commercial broadcasting
916
bargain on earth. The BBC is what it is and does what it does because its subscription fee—which we call a licence—is universal and compulsory. Set it to compete on a voluntary basis with commercial subscription services and pay television and it will vigorously and successfully compete. But it will inevitably be diminished in size, in universality and in quality. The cornerstone of British broadcasting would be greatly eroded.
The BBC is playing it long and cool. Perhaps it feels that there will be no strong public reaction on its side until the new competitors are revealing either their shortcomings or their costliness. Perhaps by the time the long-term future of the BBC is to be considered we shall have a new government with a different outlook; or the Conservative Party will have abandoned its current 19th century liberal radicalism and reverted to a nobler tradition—a Tory Party which did not always put profit first, but which usually respected culture, feared anarchy and had a deep concern for the national ethos.
The other half of our television is presented by ITV. It has shown how profit can be made by commercial concerns which provide a public service. Just as the BBC has matched it for every facet of popular entertainment, ITV has rivalled the BBC for the excellence of its news and documentary programmes, its serious interviews and its theatre. It has rivalled the BBC simply because it has been made to do so by the authority. This process has been well described by Mr. Ian Martin who has looked after the arts and documentaries at Thames Television for 20 years. He said:
"The IBA's job has been to nag us into doing programmes we might have thought too expensive, or not likely to get a big enough audience, and to do them whenever possible in peak time—all those things that are loosely lumped under the public service heading.—
Without the IBA's constant nagging there would be no 'World in Action', no 'This Week', no 'News at Ten', no 'South Bank Show' or regular weekly documentaries or single plays".
The body that exerted these rewarding pressures on commercial television is to be destroyed by this Government and a body with a lighter touch is to replace it and supervise all terrestrial television except that put out by the BBC.
Why was the current authority not given command of the new commercial system? I can only suppose that the Government thought it incapable of wielding a light hand after its years of experience of positive and creative regulation.
I wonder also whether the Government have thought through the technical problems of the transition. That was ably expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, this afternoon. The positive programme requirements for Channel 3 are indeed thin. These stations are required to show regional programmes, including some locally made ones, and high quality news and current affairs in main viewing periods. I wonder whether the main viewing period necessarily means peak hours.
The general directive is to provide,
"a diverse programme service calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests".
This could mean almost any kind of programme service except the specialist programme to a specialist audience such as one finds in cable television: for

917
example, an all-sport or all-music programme. The directive does not mean that the aim of Channel 3 must be to give the best and most comprehensive service to the widest public. It does not mean the retention of a strong public interest motive in Channel 3, Channel 5 and Channel 6. It does not mean that these channels must entertain, inform and educate; and it does not apply to the satellite services.
The White Paper says that the more competitive future,
"must be achieved without detriment to the variety, range and quality of programme services and without debasing the content of programmes".
This cannot be done. The range and quality of services we now enjoy from ITV are dependent not only on the regulation of the authority but also on the profits which make costly programmes possible. Riches and regulations are the conditions, the essentials, of high quality commercial broadcasting.
To believe that we can have in this country as many as 40 channels in the next few years, and that they will be able to maintain themselves without strain almost entirely by advertising, one would have to think that advertising revenue is infinitely elastic, stretching to fill every opportunity that is offered. Indeed, like my noble friend Lord Willis, I do not believe that it is capable of that expansion. I see even the best companies fighting like mad to win a mass audience that will satisfy their peak hour advertisers. That will not lead to television of the highest class, to put it mildly. Like everybody who has spoken today—everybody—I am appalled by the prospect of an auction for the franchises. It is true that the aspirants will have to show that they have the best of intentions about their programmes and only when they have passed that test will the bidding begin. It has been compared mockingly with a beauty contest after which the successful contestants will have to enter a second round in which they will be judged by the size of their dowries.
How on earth can a company estimate the profitability that a channel is likely to provide in an entirely new and revolutionary commercial climate? Will the existing companies, which give us excellent television and which have built up expert staffs, be able to compete with enormously rich outsiders who can afford to gamble? That problem has been put time after time in this debate and clearly it is one for the Government to consider deeply. As the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has said, it is outrageous that existing companies should have to submit sealed bids against companies that have nothing to lose. He is not against the White Paper but he describes it as it is, a White Paper for tycoons, if I understood him correctly from the other side of the Chamber.
The Government's naivety or crassness is shown again in their belief that there is a strong case for Channel 4 raising its own advertising revenue, again in this unknowable commercial climate. It is still asked by the Government to provide good original television which caters for tastes not properly served by other parts of the commercial sector. Yet how can it do this if it has to ask before every item, "What will its effect be on the advertiser? Will he really want to buy time before or after this programme?"
918
The White Paper has no confidence in the solution. It gets itself almost into a nervous breakdown on this issue, arguing that if the channel stayed in the public sector insulated from market disciplines it might be vulnerable to sterile elitism or precious self-indulgence. The White Paper says that if it is a private company maximising its profits it might be tempted to weaken its remit.
So the Government throw up their hands and ask us all for our views on what should be done. I do not envy the noble Earl his task of answering the debate. The weight of opinion here on the White Paper is sceptical or hostile. Fortunately, as has already been said, this is a White Paper strongly tinged with green. The Government will have time to think about the criticisms and the counter-proposals that they have heard today and will hear elsewhere. Let them set dogma and ideology aside and put the good of the people before the profits of the entrepreneur and the cupidity of the Treasury. Let them remember that if we are all taxpayers benefiting from the levy going into the Exchequer, we are also all viewers who might lose quality by it.
Let the Government stop pretending that the interests of commercial television companies and advertising agents are always the same as the interests of the people. They are not. Let them consider their timing. Could they not defer legislation until the four channels have learned to compete with the satellite operators?
As I said earlier, the Government are faced with a difficult problem, but the solutions that the White Paper offers are neither credible nor acceptable. They must think again and I believe they are willing to think and think more deeply. They must remember that they are dealing with a medium which has a great effect on the national spirit, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans pointed out. The Conservatives at present stand in danger of going down in history as the government who created and inherited a system of British broadcasting which was the envy of the world and yet allowed it to be wrecked.
9.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this has been, as one would have expected, a fascinating debate: one in which your Lordships have been able to divest yourselves of a fund of information and advice. The White Paper has not been the cause of criticism of either the BBC or ITV. The White Paper has tried to say, "Here is a problem. We are moving into a new era. How can we adjust ourselves so as to make the best possible use of the facilities which will be at our disposal?".
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that the BBC was a threatened species. I do not know where he gathered that information but it was not from the White Paper. The possibility may have been mooted that at some time in the future the BBC might not rely for the whole of its income on the licence fee. If that is the cause of the noble Lord's belief that the BBC is a threatened species, I can say only that I am surprised.

919
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made it clear that he did not like the White Paper. He said that in respect of Channel 4 the Government threw up their hands in horror and asked people for their opinion. That is a perfectly justifiable action. One can imagine what the noble Lord would have said if the Government had come forward with a Bill saying, "This is what we propose to do". The noble Lord would have said, "You have not consulted".
We have produced a White Paper and have said, "This is our intention. There are certain possibilities in certain areas and we should like the advice of noble Lords, Members in another place and people in the country". For doing so, we are described by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, as having thrown up our hands. It is the process of consultation, and a very proper one, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that everyone had criticised the White Paper and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that everyone had had reservations. That is not surprising when one moves into a totally new era. I did not expect all noble Lords to say, "Yes, these are the parts we agree with". Of course noble Lords do not; they rise and say, "These are the parts of the White Paper about which we have apprehensions and reservations".
We all must accept the fact that television and radio are potent influences in our modern life. On average, British people watch three-and-a-half to four hours of television per day. I am bound to say that I do not do so by virtue of my privilege of addressing your Lordships from time to time. However, other people do so and it is important that we should get it right. Even school children spend three hours per day in front of the box. Television gives prominence to programmes and personalities and for many people they become part of everyday life. In some ways the relationship between the radio and the listener is even more intimate. For many people, radio is not merely a source of entertainment and information but a good friend.
For all those reasons we must try to get it right. However, "getting it right" does not necessarily mean preserving the status quo. British broadcasting has had notable successes. As many noble Lords have said, it is the envy of many other countries. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, admitted that change is on the way and that our problem is how best to achieve it.
The Government have produced a White Paper with green edges. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has chivvied us for the green edges but I hope that he will not chivvy us for the White Paper. At least it has given the House an opportunity to consider what should be done. In the kind of climate which exists, the Government's proposals are necessarily far reaching. They attempt to create a sensible but flexible framework which encompasses all the aspects of the broadcasting industry with the minimum necessary restrictions on each part.
It is not a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, suggested, of the more the merrier and the better the cash tills will ring. Within the framework the kind of innovation and creative programme
920
which is British broadcasting at its best will be able to make the most of the new opportunities which are available. Independent producers have brought in fresh talent and the White Paper envisages a growing role for them.
The success or failure of the new technologies will depend upon performance in the market without artificial interference by the Government, and diversity and competition will feed off each other. Our proposals are carefully designed to ensure that that is not done at the expense of quality.
Many noble Lords were concerned about standards. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to that as window dressing. When we produced this White Paper I hoped that we should take the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, along with us. After all, this is something which gives freedom to people and encourages them to use their inititative. I was disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—only what he put in it and not the fact that it was he who made it. I begin to think that, if I ever find that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, agrees with the Government, then they have probably got it wrong. On this occasion he said that it was a false presentation and political gerrymandering. That is extravagant language even for the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He said that television would be put into the hands of the highest bidder, into the money bags and into the supporters of the Conservative Party. If the noble Lord is sufficiently ingenious to read that into the White Paper then I believe that he must have a very ferret-like mind that tends to go down the wrong holes.
Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord contradicted himself. At one stage he said that standards would go down the drain and then he said that members of the Conservative Party were the self-appointed guardians of our lives. It seems to me that those two are not exactly consonant with each other. At one moment he said that it would be a free-for-all where success would go to the highest bidder and then he said that this was a rigidly doctrinaire policy. When the noble Lord reads his speech and perhaps when he makes his next speech, he will have to decide which horse he is going to ride because he cannot ride both.
He gave us a very interesting and amusing glossary when he referred to the BSC. He introduced the new verb "to mogg", which he said was to bowdlerise. That should have been part of the glossary or dictionary because I was not quite certain what he meant by that. I thought that he might have included two other words in his glossary; namely, "ostrich", which is one who puts his head into the sand and pulls it out, and "Bonham-Carter", which is one who puts his head in the sand but does not pull it out.
A number of your Lordships were concerned about standards. That is a legitimate area of concern. When change comes about as it is likely to come about, everyone is quite correctly concerned about standards and how they will be achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was particularly concerned that standards would be lowered because of competitive tenders. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans was concerned about standards, as was the

921
noble Lord, Lord Annan, who said that we should look again at the matter because the standards were weak as did the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
I should like to put this matter to your Lordships as clearly as possible. There will be quality tests which will include consumer protection requirements and these matters about which we have all talked; that is, taste, decency, accuracy and balance. They will be part of the essential first hoop through which any applicant has to go. However, quality tests go further. As I explained, each channel will be required to show certain programmes which have been produced in its own region and the service must appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. In putting forward the menu of what will be done, each licensee must show that high quality news and current affairs will be shown. All those will form, if I may use this word, the "menu" which the applicant will have to put forward before he is entitled even to make a bid. It is only when he has passed those tests that the ITC will say, "You have passed those tests. You may now put in a bid". Therefore, it is up to the ITC to ensure that the standards are sufficiently high.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked whether satellite broadcasting would be subject to local control. All satellite services originating from the United Kingdom will be subject to regulation by the ITC and all consumer protection requirements will apply. Foreign satellite services will be controlled by the proposed Council of Europe Convention and the proposed offence of advertising on unacceptable satellite services.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about the monitoring of television. This will be done by the ITC which will have sanctions to apply if there are breaches. The monitoring will also be done more strategically by the Broadcasting Standards Council which will pass comment about any programmes which give it serious concern. Of course, in the end the ITC has the right to remove licences. Those are pretty stout standards and they are continuing standards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, referred to the lighter touch. All that means is that there is less intervention in the scheduling, but not in previewing programmes, and that there is less bureaucracy. However, the ITC will enforce quality tests through warnings and directions and possible licence withdrawal. The ITC will also interpret the proposed quality test. That is how the lighter touch will be made to work. It does not mean that there will be a free-for-all.
In a remarkable display, if I may say so, of humility which was consonant with his cloth and his personality, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester described himself as a microbe in a bottomless pit. All I can say is that, if that is so, it is no more than an amoeba who now addresses your Lordships. He was understandably concerned about religious broadcasts, and he has a great knowledge of those. It is true that programmes such as "Songs of Praise" and "Highway" attract large audiences. That gives ground for optimism that religious programmes will be able to take advantage of the increase in the number of channels and find their places in the schedules in the future.
922
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing also expressed concern about religious broadcasts, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. He said that there was a drastic diminution in religious broadcasting. I hope that will not be the case and I do not think that it will necessarily be so. Perhaps it will be less guaranteed than it was, but there will be many more opportunities because many more channels and outlets will be available. There are plenty of programmes on religious matters in the United States and it will be up to those who make religious programmes to seize the increased opportunities which will exist.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred to controls on religious ownership. These proposals are not designed to prevent religious broadcasts. They can happen now and there will be greater opportunities for them in the future. The proposals are designed to prevent people seizing control of television stations and using them to peddle particular and perhaps extremist religious viewpoints. Many people, including many Christians, would find that offensive. If there are problems of that nature I am certain that the ITC will be concerned to ensure that they do not come about.
Many noble Lords referred to competitive tenders. My noble friend Lord Buxton was concerned that ITV companies should not be owned by tycoons. If I may say so, his contribution was helpful in so far as he explained that that was not the case. People do speak in a rather grandiose way about tycoons. My noble friend gave the example of his own company as one that is not run by tycoons; but there are others which we might look at and on which we might come to different conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, also asked whether the bids would be open to the public. My noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Ridley also referred to the anxieties of competitive tenders. The competitive tender was recommended by the Peacock Committee in a slightly different form from that proposed in the White Paper. A very thorough inquiry was made by the Home Affairs Committee, in the course of which it took oral evidence on 13 occasions and there were 14 memoranda. Its report made in June of this year states that,
"A suitably regulated tendering process would continue to provide a good return to the Exchequer while satisfying the demand for quality television and good housekeeping by the television companies. We therefore recommend that such a system be introduced when the franchises are next due for renewal in 1992."
I do not believe that there is necessarily anything wrong with competitive tendering as such.
My noble friend Lord Buxton referred to ownership and the takeovers. He was concerned about Anglia Television. The Government would welcome detailed comments on how the rules should be formulated. If a licensee is taken over there is no guarantee that its employees will be taken on by the new licensee. The increase in competition and the new channels should create many new opportunities for jobs in broadcasting.

923
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, was concerned about competitive tenders and whether the bids should be public or not. The White Paper states that both stages of the procedures will be open to public scrutiny. It will be for the ITC to work out the details of the procedures. My noble friend Lord Ridley asked why it was necessary to have a levy if the monopoly has gone. The competitive tender and the levy go together. Those tendering will take account of the levy when deciding the level of their bids. The levy is needed in order to ensure that there is a fair sharing of risk between the licensees.
A number of your Lordships referred to the licence fee. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in his distinguished position as Vice-Chairman of the BBC, said that he was anxious to keep the licence fee as low as possible. He said that the public had very good value for money at £5 per month from the BBC, whereas there were others who charged £12 a month. That is an example of competitive operation. The noble Lord was quite right to point out the advantages of the BBC licence fee. He said that we should not use subscription too quickly, but he was not averse to it.
I was grateful to the noble Lord for saying that because many people feel that if the subscriptions were to come to the BBC, this would be the most appalling event that had ever happened. I was glad that from the position that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, holds, he did not feel that was such an infringement of existing practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to viewers and said that the White Paper did not mention them. It does because in paragraph 1:2 it states that,
"The Government places the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy."
That is fundamental to the whole of the approach of the Government to the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, also complained about the listings duopoly. We are examining the Home Affairs Select Committee's recommendation to see whether there is scope for relaxation of the present arrangements, but our consultations are not yet complete. We shall announce our conclusions in a further response to the committee as soon as we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, asked why we had to go down market by making Channel 4 advertise. It now seems likely that under the present system the revenue from Channel 4's air time could enable it to fund its own service. If it funds its own service that will not necessarily make it go downmarket.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred to radio and I was grateful for her proposals. One of the proposed new national commercial stations will be on VHF, so she will be able to listen to it on her car radio in stereo if she wishes. The noble Baroness produced some interesting arguments, in particular that all radio should be independent. That will be strongly opposed by admirers of BBC Radios 1 to 4. The White Paper says that the BBC should continue to provide public service radio.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans asked whether the Government could guarantee that the feared continued decline in quality would be
924
arrested. No one can give such a guarantee. All the Government can do is to set certain frameworks. It is not for the Government to dictate what the standards should be or whether they are acceptable. We believe that the process which we suggest in the White Paper should enable a reasonable standard of television to be continued and there are proper safeguards for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Swann, said that there was worldwide dismay and astonishment at the Government's proposals. I was surprised that he said that. I hope that there will not be worldwide dismay. We are trying to set a framework within which people can operate better in the new circumstances that are available. That will mean alterations to the present system. If there is dismay at the Government's proposals I am sure the noble Lord will realise that some people have said that we should alter the BBC at the same time. The Government have taken the sound advice that it is always best to keep one foot on the ground at any one time.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that multichannel deregulated television provides only a bogus choice. He referred to United States television. The critics of the White Paper often point to the spectre of United States television. United Kingdom broadcasting has certain unique strengths which should be preserved. But the evidence from the United States does not mean that channel proliferation leads to what one might call wall-to-wall "Dallas"'. The United States has channels with more continous programming aimed at minority interest than any in the United Kingdom; for instance, the arts channel, the drama and music channel, the discovery channel, the educational and documentary channel, and the Disney channel which deals with programmes—
Lord Willis: Is the noble Earl aware that not a single drama—I am not referring to series like "Dallas" or "Dynasty"—has been produced in America during the past 20 years?
Earl Ferrers: That may be so, but I am not certain as to the relevance of the point.
Lord Willis: Lower standards.
Earl Ferrers: There is no evidence that if one has a good deal of television, it is all bad. If no proper drama has been produced in America, that presumably gives an opportunity for British producers as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Swann, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked about the abolition of the IBA. A single regulatory agency is needed to look across the independent sector—ITV, cable satellite and microwave. It was also recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The ITC will need to be a licensing body rather than a broadcasting authority. There is a difference in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Morris referred to local television franchises. I was grateful for the attention he drew to this part of the White Paper which will allow microwave, as well as cable, to be harnessed for the benefit of the viewer.

925
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said what pity it was that the BBC did not sometimes say, "Sorry, we have made a mistake". I think that if he looks at the recent past he will see that there have been several incidents where the BBC has done exactly that and that it has periodically made changes where it thought that such action was desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to transmission to the remoter parts of the country. He said that it relied upon cross-subsidy between ITV regions. Channel 3 will be universal in the same sense as ITV is. It will be up to the ITC to ensure that franchise holders can and do maintain this universality. The White Paper proposes introductions of microwave transmission for local delivery of television. It will be quicker and cheaper than laying cable and therefore it should make it easier to supply a wide range of channels over the entire country.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that there would not be enough revenue to finance all the new channels. It is not the Government's approach to produce a blueprint that is based upon future revenue forecasts, which may prove to have been unreliable. We are trying to set the framework for those new facilities to operate if they want, if they can and if there is a demand for them.
926
My noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to licence dates. The present ITV franchises could not be renewed without fresh legislation. That is what the White Paper proposes. As regards the London Jazz Radio, the size of the 20 interim community stations will be for the IBA, but a London-wide station should be a possibility.
I realise that I have taken up too much time in replying to your Lordships' questions and that there are many which I have not answered. I can only say that I am grateful to noble Lords for the attention which has been given to this debate and for the advice which has been given to the Government. All that has been said will be taken into account most carefully because we want—to use those words again —to get it right as near as we reasonably can. We are most grateful for the advice which your Lordships have given.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Newcastle upon Tyne Town Moor Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  ISRAEL AND THE PLO: POLICY
  ISRAEL AND THE PLO: POLICY
  PLO POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL
  PLO POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL
  SERVICE CHARGES: ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING BENEFIT
  SERVICE CHARGES: ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING BENEFIT
  SUPPORTED LODGINGS SCHEMES
  SUPPORTED LODGINGS SCHEMES
  HOMOEOPATHIC PRODUCTS DIRECTIVE: CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS
  HOMOEOPATHIC PRODUCTS DIRECTIVE: CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS
  HIV INFECTION AND AIDS SCREENING
  HIV INFECTION AND AIDS SCREENING
  FAST REACTOR: EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME
  FAST REACTOR: EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME
  KING'S CROSS FIRE: CORONER'S VERDICT
  KING'S CROSS FIRE: CORONER'S VERDICT
  DIRECT HOUSING PROVISION: OPTING OUT BY COUNCILS
  DIRECT HOUSING PROVISION: OPTING OUT BY COUNCILS